Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — A Recipe For Broken Marriages And Relationships
http://www.ebc-india.com/practicallawyer/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8753&Itemid=1
The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 giving protection to women from domestic violence is a step in right direction. By including the unmarried sisters, mothers, widows, etc. in the list of women facing domestic violence the Act has ensured full proof protection to the harassed women. But the main problem has always been the reticence of women not voicing their protests and complaining and not the law. The mindset of the women has to change.
While the intention of the Domestic Violence Act is laudable, the Act itself is draconian and very harsh on men. Following are some of the dangerous flaws in the said Act.
Section 32(2) says that “upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of Section 31 has been committed by the accused.”
By treating the victim’s testimony as gospel truth without any need for corroboration it has virtually empowered all women to punish men at their will. This is very dangerous for innocent men. As it is the rape, adultery and dowry laws are already skewed in favour of women. And now this Act would leave the men with absolutely no remedy against the erring women who would lodge false complaint. All she has to do is to go to the court/police, register the case and the husband will be right behind bars in a jiffy.
Chapter IV Section 17 makes the “right of residence” a powerful tool in the women’s hands whether or not she has any title in the household.
By including the divorced wives, former girlfriends and live-in partners in the list of women facing domestic violence this Act has enough leeway for women to misuse the law. Why should a divorced wife who has legally separated in the court of law and who has also received proper alimony, should have any right in the husband’s household? This is an open invitation for conniving women to harass innocent men. And why should live-in partners and girlfriends be included in the list since these are not legally recognised relationships in India. Now, any woman will get into a relationship with men and demand their right in the household? Also, an adulterous woman can abuse her husband or in-laws and threaten them of false domestic violence but she cannot be thrown out of the house as per the Act. She could even bring her paramour/lover to the house and the husband or in-laws can’t do a thing about it.
Chapter II Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act defines domestic violence as actual abuse or threat of abuse—physical, verbal, emotional or economic.
While physical and economical abuse can be proved it is almost impossible to prove verbal and emotional abuse, which could result in women registering false cases as they won’t have to prove anything (they don’t have to prove anything anyway). And why not add spiritual abuse, philosophical abuse, educational abuse, etc. under domestic violence? Section 18 allows the Magistrate to protect the women from acts of violence or even “acts that are likely to take place” in the future and can prohibit the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved person or in any other manner disturbing her possessions, entering the aggrieved person’s place of work or any other place that the abused women frequents….This means that the husband and his family (parents, sisters, etc.) must leave their own house as the Act does not allow them to come to a place where the aggrieved women stays or frequents. But she gets to stay in their house (and may be with her lover). Wow! Moreover, how can the future (imaginary?) acts of violence (acts that are likely to place) can be considered for punishment is beyond comprehension. Why pre-empt such dangerous thing.
Chapter III Section 4 of the Act says that the information regarding an act or acts of domestic violence does not necessarily have to be lodged by the aggrieved party but by “any person who has reason to believe that” such an act has been or is being committed. Which means that neighbours should take initiative on behalf of the victim.
“Why should any person who has reason to believe that such act has been committed” be allowed to register a complaint just on his/her belief? What about authentic proofs and evidence? It also means that even a wife’s paramour/lover can now file a complaint on her behalf. Isn’t this great! It has also been found that in the event of altercation the police generally arrests the husband and the in-laws. This arbitrary decision of the police to favour the daughter-in-law is a newfound ethics, to protect the rights and liberalisation of the women and it violates the principles of natural justice. Law should take its own course to punish the guilty whoever it might be.
The important flaw in the Act is inclusion of live-in partners or any sexual partners [Chapter I Section 2(a)].This automatically gives legitimacy to live-in relationship. Isn’t this unfair for legally wedded wives? Won’t the promiscuous husbands now take advantages of this bill?
There are many such howlers in the Domestic Violence Act. The Domestic Violence Act, under the garb of protecting harassed women, has now actually become a powerful tool in the hands of women to harass men and strip them off all their rights. The Act will actually worsen the domestic problems leading to breakdown in marriages as women will now be tempted/encouraged to go to courts/police after trivial fights or heavy fights happening in the heat of the moment. The Act discourages women to rectify their mistake. The Act not only gives sweeping powers to females but also takes away all the rights of men. While it imposes a lot of responsibility on men, it gives lot of rights to women who misuses the law?
While domestic laws are enacted to save the poor female, there have been many cases where many cunning unscrupulous women have misused these laws to their advantages. For example, the misuse of Section 498 meant to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment. There have been cases where women were incited by the family members to take revenge to settle family disputes by registering false cases. Such gags of extortioning money from innocent men and to wreck vengeance will now grossly misuse the Domestic Violence Act that is made to protect women. By making a one-sided Act, wives, live-in partners will now be tempted to use it against their husbands/partners.
Feminists would aver as to why a women would file a case if she is happy in the marriage. But that would be like saying that men are under mercy of women. If wives or live-in partners are not happy for whatever trivial reasons, they can now turn the table on their husband by filing false cases irrespective of whether any violence occurred or not. Gender partisanship is wholly out of place in the cases of domestic violence. Tweaking the way the law is interpreted in such a way so as to diminish responsibility for one sex or the other could have mortal consequences for poor men. Domestic violence is too grave a matter to be an area where the radicals can show off how feminist they are. And at present domestic violence is a feminist issue. For the courts and women organisations, it is a matter of obvious mistruth that women cannot commit domestic crimes or that women cannot register false rape cases.
Why shouldn’t men also have protection against domestic violence? Why can’t the same factors attributed to men for harassing their wives can also be attributed to women? There are numerous cases of male harassment and a study of physical and verbal abuse of men by women will bring out a clear picture. Suicide rate of men in India goes up by almost 50% after marriage due to emotional abuse.
The Komolikas, Pallavis, Kaaveris, Jigyaasas, etc. of India would relish the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Act gives a lot of scope for corrupt lawyers and bribes for police, NGOs and politicians to make lots of money. The innocent men, women, children, etc. will only get discriminated against.
Let there be strict laws for domestic violence and strict punishment for guilty and abusive men but let there not be biased laws heavily in favour of women that would only end in broken marriage and relationship. The Domestic Violence Act needs immediate and complete overhaul.
by Dr. Minal M. Bapat*
www.ebc-india.com
Role of Public Prosecutor as defined by International Guidelines and International & National Jurisprudence
http://practicallawyer.ebc-india.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8398&Itemid=1
In Indian criminal justice system, the role of a Public Prosecutor, though of immense importance, has always been shrouded in controversy. Allegations varying from corruption to deliberate withholding of important witnesses have been flung at them. One of the main reasons for such controversial image of Public Prosecutors is the fact that there is much confusion about their duties and responsibilities. Police, the accused and the victim all have totally different and conflicting beliefs about what role a Public Prosecutor is supposed to play. For example, according to police, the main duty of a Public Prosecutor is to get the accused convicted. According to the accused, the main role of the Public Prosecutor is to make available to the accused any legitimate benefit that he is entitled during the trial even if the defense counsel has overlooked it. According to the victim, a Public Prosecutor is her/his “avenging angel” and will get her/him justice at any cost. Looking at these varying and totally at variance interpretations, it is not difficult to reach the conclusion that one of the biggest obstacles in way of efficient performance of the Indian prosecuting machinery is confusion clouding the minds of Public Prosecutors themselves regarding what role they are supposed to play.
This paper analyses various national and international judicial pronouncements and international guidelines on role of a Public Prosecutor and on the basis of these tries to give a judicially and legally accurate picture of responsibilities and duties of a Public Prosecutor. This paper is divided in five parts. Part I describes role and responsibilities of Public Prosecutor as defined by international guidelines. Part II elaborates on role and responsibilities of Prosecutor as explained by jurisprudence of different common law countries following an adversarial system. Part III illustrates how Indian judiciary has interpreted the role and responsibilities of a Public Prosecutor. Part V is the conclusion. The paper, on the basis of this analysis, concludes that role of the Public Prosecutor is not to single-mindedly seek a conviction regardless of the evidence and a Public Prosecutor has to play role of a “minister of justice” who should place before the court all evidence in her/his possession, whether in favour of or against the accused.Role of Public Prosecutor as interpreted by international law and guidelines
There are various international guidelines elaborating upon the role of Public Prosecutors. The most important of these are “United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors” (adopted by the United Nations during the United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders in Havana in 1990), “Recommendation 19 (2000) on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System”, adopted by Council of Europe in 2000 and general standards entitled the “Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures”, formulated by the International Association of Prosecutors in 1999.
The United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (abbreviated as “UNG” from herein) require Prosecutors to perform their duties fairly, impartially, consistently, protecting human dignity, upholding human rights and avoiding all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kind of discrimination1. The use of prosecutorial discretion, when permitted in a particular jurisdiction, must be exercised independently and should be free from political interference2. In order to ensure the fairness and effectiveness of prosecution, prosecutors must strive to cooperate with the police, the courts, the legal profession, public defenders and other government agencies or institutions3. Corollary to requirements of fairness and impartiality is the condition that prosecution should not be initiated or every effort to stay proceedings should be made where an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded.4 Providing a corollary to this, the International Association of Prosecutors (abbreviated as “IAP” from herein) standards provide that criminal proceedings should be proceeded with only when a case is well founded upon evidence, which is reasonably believed to be reliable and admissible5. When Prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that has been obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect’s human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they are under a duty to refuse the usage of such evidence6. The Prosecutors are also required to take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, pay attention to all relevant circumstances, and disclose all relevant evidence irrespective of whether it is to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect7. The Prosecutors must act objectively and also remain unaffected by individual or sectional interests and public or media pressures. They must have regard only to public interest8.
The States are also under a duty to ensure that Prosecutors are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, improper interference or unjustified exposure to civil, penal or other liability9. The States are further required to provide reasonable conditions of service to Prosecutors, adequate remuneration, and where applicable, tenure and pension10. Moreover, the promotion of Prosecutors should be based on objective factors, in particular professional qualifications, ability, integrity and experience, and decided upon in accordance with fair and impartial procedures11. If in a State, non prosecutorial authorities have the right to give general or specific instructions to Prosecutors or right of directing the institution of proceedings or right to stop legally instituted proceedings, such instructions should be transparent, consistent with lawful authority and subject to established guidelines to safeguard the actuality and the perception of prosecutorial independence12. The Council of Europe recommendations goes further and states that instructions not to prosecute in a specific case should in principle be prohibited. Should that not be the case, such instructions must remain exceptional and be subjected to transparency and appropriate control13. The Council of Europe recommendations also state that Public Prosecutors should account periodically and publicly for their activities as a whole and, in particular, about the way in which their priorities are carried out14.Role of Prosecutor as interpreted by law of other countries
In United States, the duty of a Public Prosecutor or other government lawyer is to seek justice, not merely to convict15 and to see that justice is done16. Rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct formulated by the American Bar Association lays down that the Prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the Prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause and make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the Prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense and in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the Prosecutor, except when the Prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal17.
In Harry Berger v. United States of America18, Mr Justice Sutherland, delivering the opinion of the Court said that: (US p. 88)
"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. [She/]he may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much [her/]his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
The Supreme Court of Canada has also elaborated upon role of Prosecutor in R. v. Boucher19 by saying that:
It cannot be over-emphasised that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel has a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of Prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; her/his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings. 20
According to New Zealand Law Society’s Rules of Professional Conduct although the Prosecutor is an advocate, he or she must prosecute “dispassionately and with scrupulous fairness” 21. The New Zealand courts have explained that the Crown’s duty is to present its case fairly and completely, and to be as firm as the circumstances warrant, but the Crown must never “struggle for a conviction”.22 They have further said that it is “quite impermissible” for a Prosecutor to attempt to persuade the jury by factors of prejudice or emotion and that the Prosecutor is neither the lawyer for the victim, nor a lawyer for the police. He or she acts on behalf of the community, and has a responsibility to ensure that justice is done in a fair and balanced way23.
The Canadian jurisprudence has also interpreted the role of a Prosecutor by laying down that a Prosecutor’s responsibilities are public in nature. As a Prosecutor and public representative, Crown counsel’s demeanor and actions should be fair, dispassionate and moderate, show no signs of partisanship24, open to the possibility of the innocence of the accused person and avoid “tunnel vision” 25. It is especially important that Crown counsel avoid personalising their role in Court26. The Canadian Supreme Court has further very strongly held that although Crown counsel work closely with the police, the separation between police and Crown roles is of fundamental importance to the proper administration of justice27.Role of Prosecutor: interpretation by Indian judiciary
Despite the fact that the Public Prosecutor is appointed by the State, her/his sole aim is not to seek a conviction. The Indian courts have interpreted the role of Prosecutor as “minister of justice” who should place before the court all evidence in her/his possession, whether in favour of or against the accused. The role of the Prosecutor is not to single-mindedly seek a conviction regardless of the evidence. The Indian judiciary has interpreted role, responsibilities and duties of prosecution as follows:
1. An ideal Prosecutor must consider herself/himself as an agent of justiceThe ideal Public Prosecutor is not concerned with securing convictions, or with satisfying departments of the State Governments with which she/he has been in contact. He must consider herself/himself as an agent of justice28. The Allahabad High Court had ruled that it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to see that justice is vindicated and that he should not obtain an unrighteous conviction29.2. There should not be on part of a Public Prosecutor “a seemly eagerness for, or grasping at a conviction”The purpose of a criminal trial being to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused person, the duty of a Public Prosecutor is not to represent any particular party, but the State. The prosecution of the accused persons has to be conducted with the utmost fairness. In undertaking the prosecution, the State is not actuated by any motives of revenge but seeks only to protect the community. There should not therefore be “a seemly eagerness for, or grasping at a conviction” 30.3. A Public Prosecutor should not by statement aggravate the case against the accused, or keep back a witness because her/his evidence may weaken the case for prosecutionThe only aim of a Public Prosecutor should be to aid the court in discovering truth. A Public Prosecutor should avoid any proceedings likely to intimidate or unduly influence witnesses on either side. There should be on her/his part no unseemly eagerness for, or grasping at, conviction29.4. A Public Prosecutor should place before the Court whatever evidence is in her/his possessionThe duty of a public Prosecutor is not merely to secure the conviction of the accused at all costs but to place before the court whatever evidence is in the possession of the prosecution, whether it be in favour of or against the accused and to leave the court to decide upon all such evidence, whether the accused had or had not committed the offence with which he stood charged.31 It is as much the duty of the Prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice32.5. The duty of the Public Prosecutor is to represent the State and not the policeA Public Prosecutor is an important officer of the State Government and is appointed by the State under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She/he is not a part of the investigating agency. She/he is an independent statutory authority. She/he is neither the post office of the investigating agency, nor its “forwarding agency” but is charged with a statutory duty.33 The purpose of a criminal trial is not to support at all cost a theory, but to investigate the offence and to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and the duty of the Public Prosecutor is to represent not the police, but the State and her/his duty should be discharged by her/him fairly and fearlessly and with a full sense of responsibility that attaches to her/his position34. There can be no manner of doubt that Parliament intended that Public Prosecutors should be free from the control of the police department35.6. A Public Prosecutor should discharge her/his duties fairly and fearlessly and with full sense of responsibility that attaches to her/his positionThe Patna High Court held that purpose of a criminal trial is not to support a given theory at all costs but to investigate the offence and to determine the fault or innocence of the accused and the duty of the Public Prosecutor is to represent not the police but the Crown and her/his duty should be discharged by her/him fairly and fearlessly and with full sense of responsibility that attaches to her/his position36.7. Prosecution does not mean persecutionThe Andhra Pradesh High Court had ruled that prosecution should not mean persecution and the Prosecutor should be scrupulously fair to the accused and should not strive for conviction in all these cases. It further stated that the courts should be zealous to see that the prosecution of an offender should not be given to a private party. The Court also said that if there is no one to control the situation when there was a possibility of things going wrong, it would amount to a legalised manner of causing vengeance37.8. A Public Prosecutor cannot appear on behalf of the accusedIt is inconsistent with the ethics of legal profession and fair play in the administration of justice for the Public Prosecutor to appear on behalf of the accused38.9. No fair trial when the Prosecutor acts in a manner as if he was defending the accusedIt is the Public Prosecutors’ duty to present the truth before the court. Fair trial means a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair Prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. The Prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defense is a liability to the fair judicial system39.10. The statutory responsibility for deciding upon withdrawal squarely vests unwavering with the Public Prosecutor and should be guided by the Criminal Procedure CodeThe statutory responsibility for deciding upon withdrawal squarely vests on the Public Prosecutor and is entirely within the discretion of the Public Prosecutor. It is non-negotiable and cannot be bartered away in favour of those who may be above her/him on the administrative side. The Criminal Procedure Code is the only master of the Public Prosecutor and he has to guide herself/himself with reference to Criminal Procedure Code only. So guided, the consideration which must weigh with her/him is, whether the broader cause of public justice will be advanced or retarded by the withdrawal or continuance of the prosecution. The sole consideration for the Public Prosecutor when she/he decides a withdrawal from a prosecution is the larger factor of administration of justice, not political favours nor party pressures nor like concerns40.11. District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police cannot order the Public Prosecutor to move for the withdrawalThe District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police cannot order the Public Prosecutor to move for the withdrawal, although it may be open to the District Magistrate to bring to the notice of the Public Prosecutor materials and suggest to her/him to consider whether the prosecution should be withdrawn or not. But, the District Magistrate cannot command and can only recommend40.12. If there is some issue that the defense could have raised, but has failed to do so, then that should be brought to the attention of the court by the Public ProsecutorThe Supreme Court stated that the duty of the Public Prosecutor is to ensure that justice is done. It stated that if there is some issue that the defense could have raised, but has failed to do so, then that should be brought to the attention of the court by the Public Prosecutor. Hence, she/he functions as an officer of the court and not as the counsel of the State, with the intention of obtaining a conviction41.The District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police cannot order the Public Prosecutor to move for the withdrawal, although it may be open to the District Magistrate to bring to the notice of the Public Prosecutor materials and suggest to her/him to consider whether the prosecution should be withdrawn or not. But, the District Magistrate cannot command and can only recommend.12. The Supreme Court stated that the duty of the Public Prosecutor is to ensure that justice is done. It stated that if there is some issue that the defense could have raised, but has failed to do so, then that should be brought to the attention of the court by the Public Prosecutor. Hence, she/he functions as an officer of the court and not as the counsel of the State, with the intention of obtaining a conviction.
ConclusionAfter analysing aforementioned international guidelines and jurisprudence of different countries (including India), it is clear that it is not a Public Prosecutor’s duty to seek conviction at all cost. Nor, is her/his duty to act as an avenging angle for the victim. On the contrary, her/his duty is to ensure that justice is delivered and in pursuance of this he/she must lay before the court all relevant evidence including the evidence that favours the accused. Corollary to this is the duty of a Public Prosecutor to bring to attention of the Court, any issue that the defense could have raised, but has failed to do. But, in doing so, she/he cannot act as if she/he is defending the victim, nor can he/she appear on behalf of the accused. When the Prosecutor acts in a manner as if she/he was defending the accused, then there is no fair trial. A Public Prosecutor is an independent entity from police and police cannot order her/him to conduct prosecution in a particular way. Police, politicians or any other extraneous party cannot influence her/his actions, including her/his discretion to decide withdrawal of a case. She/he represents the State and not the police and can only be influenced by “public interest”. In pursuance of her/his duties, he cannot use improper methods calculated to produce wrongful convictions and she/he must discharge her/his functions in a scrupulously fair and honest way. In brief, a Public Prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.
Articles 12 and 13(a), United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors
Article 2.1, International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Article 20, United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors
Article 14, United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors
Article 4.2(d), International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Article 16, United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors; Article 4.3(f), International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Article 3(d), International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Article 13(b), United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors; Articles 3(e) and (f); International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Article 4, United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors; Article 6(a), International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Article 6, United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors; Article 6(c), International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Article 7, United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors; Article 6(e), International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Articles 2.2 and 2.3, International Association of Prosecution’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Right of Procedures
Article 13(f), Recommendation No. 19(2000) on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System, adopted by Council of Europe in 2000
Article 11, Recommendation No. 19(2000) on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System, adopted by Council of Europe in 2000
Rule 3.8(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
Article 2.01, Texas’s Code of Criminal Procedure, 1966
Rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the American Bar Associates’ House of Delegates in 1983
(1934) 295 US 78-89 : 79 L Ed 1314
R. v. Boucher, (1954) 110 CCC 263 (SCC)
R. v. Boucher, (1954) 110 CCC 263 at p. 270.
Rule 9.01, Rules for Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors, Adopted by the New Zealand Law Society on 28th July, 1989
R. v. Puddick, (1865) 176 ER 622 at p. 663. See R. v. Thomas (No. 2), (1974) 1 NZLR 658 (CA)
R. v. Roulston, (1976) 2 NZLR 644 at p. 654.
R. v. Henderson, (1999) 44 OR (3d) 628 (CA); R. v. Arthur F., (1996) 30 OR (3d) 470; R. v. Vandenberghe, (1995) 96 CCC (3d) 371 (CA); R. v. Stinchcombe, (1992) 68 CCC (3d) 1 (SCC)
“…tunnel vision means the single-minded and overly narrow focus on a particular investigative or prosecutorial theory, so as to unreasonably color the evaluation of information received and one’s conduct in response to that information.” The Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin, The Hon’ble Fred Kaufman, Commissioner (Toronto: Queen’s Printer, 1998) at p. 1136.
R. v. F.S., (2000) 47 OR (3d) 349 (Ont. CA); R. v. Chambers, (1990) 59 CCC (3d) 321 (SCC); R. v. McDonald, (1958) 120 CCC 209.
R. v. Regan, (2002) 1 SCR 297 (SCC); The Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Jr. Prosecution; The 1998 Report of the Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin
Per Anantanarayanan, C.J., in A. Mohambaram v. M.A. Jayavelu, 1970 Cri LJ 241 at p. 245
Kashinath Dinka, (1871) 8 BHC (Cr C) 126, 153
Anant Wasudeo Chandekar v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Nag 243 at p. 245
Ghirrao v. Emperor, (1933) 34 Cri LJ 1009 (Oudh Chief Court)
Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble, (2003) 7 SCC 749 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1918, at para 35
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602, at para 23
Ram Ranjan Ray v. Emperor, (1915) 42 Cal 422 at p. 428; Jai Pal Singh Naresh v. State of U.P., 1976 Cri LJ 32 (All); Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087
1976 Cri LJ 32 (All)
Kunja Subudhi v. Emperor, (1929) 30 Cri LJ 675
Medichetty Ramakistiah v. State of A.P., AIR 1959 AP 659
Sunil Kumar Pal v. Phota Sk., (1984) 4 SCC 533 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 18
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999
Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar, (1977) 4 SCC 448 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 633, at para 2
Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, (1999) 7 SCC 467 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1277
By Sameera SinghCite as: (2008) PL Feb. 9
http://practicallawyer.ebc-india.com
Court reserves judgement in BMW case
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Court-reserves-judgement-in-BMW-case/353562/
New Delhi, August 26: A Delhi Court reserves its verdict in the nine-year-old BMW hit-and-run case for September 2.
After hearing the final arguments of both the prosecution and the defence on Tuesday, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar said he would pronounce the judgement on September 2.
Six persons were killed in the accident involving the BMW car on January 10, 1999 in Lodhi Colony area in New Delhi.
Agencies
Posted online: Tuesday , August 26, 2008 at 04:51:26
www.expressindia.com
MP High Court issues notices in NaiDuniya writ petition on IRS 2008 R1 report
http://www.exchange4media.com/e4m/news/newfullstory1.asp?news_id=32262&tag=27177§ion_id=5
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Indore on August 22, 2008, admitted a writ petition by NaiDunia Media challenging the Indian Readership Survey (IRS), 2008 R1 report and has issued notices to the Media Research Users Council (MRUC) and others.
The petition was submitted by NaiDunia Media before the High Court, challenging the IRS 2008 R1 report issued by MRUC, stating that report was based on misleading facts and data without following proper procedure.
In its petition, NaiDunia Media asked, if the circulation of its newspaper had increased then how could its readership drop, as indicated in the said IRS media report.
NaiDunia Media also aired its grievance, stating that the MRUC report was causing irreparable loss to its Hindi daily NaiDunia published from five locations in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
The High Court admitted NaiDunia Media’s petition for hearing and issued notices to MRUC and others.
Anil Dhupar, President-Marketing, NaiDunia Media, said, “Earlier, Naidunia Media had issued legal notice to MRUC just after the release of the IRS 2008 R1 media report to which MRUC did not respond seriously. We also raised the issue on various platforms, but MRUC hardly cared for it, thus we took the matter to the High Court in the larger interest of the print industry.”
When contacted, MRUC officials said that they had not received any notice with respect to any writ petition and added that it had adequately responded to the earlier notice issued by NaiDunia Media.
August 27, 08
exchange4media Mumbai Bureau
www.exchange4media.com
© exchange4media 2008
SC to hear PIL into Assets Case of CPM leaders
http://www.indlawnews.com/Newsdisplay.aspx?836a690a-4856-483c-ae34-da7d4aa630c2
The Supreme Court will hear a PIL seeking a CBI inquiry into the assets of some senior CPM leaders including party general secretary Prakash Karat and his wife Brinda Karat.A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan will consider a petition filed by advocate Joydeep Mukherjee who has pleaded for the CBI inquiry against other CPM leaders also, such as Mohammad Salim, Bimal Basu, Vinayak Kumar, Hannan Mollah, Sudhanshu Sil, Lakhim Seit, Nilotpal Basu and Bansgopal Choudhury.According to the petitioner, the party has about 7000 full time workers and they are paid remuneration each at the rate of Rs 3200 per month.The petitioner has also alleged that these leaders have accumulated assets over worth Rs 200 crore which are beyond their known sources of income.The petition was filed a few days before the trust vote in the Lok Sabha following the withdrawal of support by the Left parties.The petitioner did not seek urgent hearing of his petition arguing that it might send an impression that the petition was politically motivated.UNI
8/25/2008
www.indlawnews.com
STRONG MEDICINE http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080827/jsp/opinion/story_9748734.jsp
The proposed amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act will make the law more stringent and help control the spread of spurious drugs, reports V. Kumara Swamy Last month the Haryana police busted a spurious drug manufacturer in Gurgaon. It was using talcum powder to make fake Ciprofloxacin tablets. Although the unit was closed down and its owners arrested, nobody knows what the outcome of the trial will be. Going by the history of such cases, the accused are likely to get off with a light punishment, or perhaps go scot free.
“We have been very lethargic on these issues,” feels Harinder S. Sikka, director, corporate affairs, Piramal Healthcare, who has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court, calling for the implementation of stringent laws against spurious drug manufacturers. “Only a handful of fake drug manufacturers has been brought to book in the last 60 years. Others have mostly got away with small fines and gone back to their lucrative trade,” he says.
According to Sikka, spurious drugs are sold openly in Kanpur and Agra’s dawa mandis (drug markets), and in the Bhagirath Palace market in Delhi right under the eyes of the police.
This is set to change soon. Recently, the government decided to expedite the passing of the long pending Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill, 2007. The bill seeks to amend the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and proposes a significant increase in punishment, among other things. The current law stipulates a mere five years’ jail term for an offender and a paltry fine of Rs 10,000. But if the amendment comes through, a person involved in the manufacture and sale of spurious drugs is liable to get a prison term of not less than 10 years. A fine of not less than Rs 10 lakh or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is greater, has also been suggested. The new law will make the offence cognisable and non-bailable too.
The amendments also seek to control the spread of spurious cosmetics, making it mandatory for manufacturers of soaps, creams, shaving products and so on to clearly describe the ingredients on the labels of the products. Even Ayurvedic and Unani cosmetics and medicines have been brought under the ambit of the new law.
“People indulge in the manufacture of spurious drugs because it’s a lucrative business. A stronger legal machinery, a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment and a steep fine will force many of them to fold up their businesses,” predicts D.B.A. Narayana, managing trustee, Delhi Pharmaceutical Trust.
The government plans to pass the bill in the next session of Parliament. “This welcome move has been due for a long time,” says Sikka. The bill has, in fact, been pending in the Rajya Sabha for more than three years.
An expert committee headed by R.A. Mashelkar, former director general, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), suggested many of the recommendations as early as 2003. The committee had proposed the setting up of a separate Central Drugs Authority (CDA) to oversee the licensing of drug manufacturers and the creation of special courts to try spurious drug-related cases, besides the enhancement of punishment.
“Fake drugs violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to life,” says Amarendra Sharan, additional solicitor general of India and a member of the Mashelkar committee. “The government has incorporated most of the recommendations and this bill, when passed, will go a long way in strengthening the hands of law enforcers,” he says.
There are no definite figures on the volume of spurious drugs available in the country. Last year a World Health Organisation-funded study said that around 3.1 per cent of the drugs in the market are spurious. But in February 2008, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry claimed that spurious drugs accounted for a staggering 20-25 per cent of the drugs available in the market. And the market in spurious drugs was worth upwards of Rs 15,000 crores, it added.
“There are no firm data on the spread of spurious drugs. But no matter how small or big it is, it has to be stopped,” declares T.R. Gopalakrishnan, a consultant at the Indian Drug Manufacturers Association (IDMA), Mumbai.
Gopalakrishnan is not impressed with all the new provisions in the bill and says that some of them are likely to be misused. “Government agencies should try to reach the spurious drug manufacturers rather than the distributors who may not know that they are selling fake drugs. Or else innocent people may be victimised while the culprits go unpunished,” he says.
Many are also opposed to the setting up of the CDA to issue licences to drug manufacturers. Right now, it is the state government that carries out this function. “Many small drug manufacturers will be driven out of business as they cannot approach the CDA every time they need a licence. This is nothing but a conspiracy of the big drug companies to monopolise the market,” argues Aloke Chaudhari, secretary, West Bengal Small Scale Pharmaceutical Manufactures’ Association. “The spurious drug manufacturers do not need a licence. Where is the need for a central authority when the state government is in a better position to assess the local situation and issue licences,” he asks. According to Chaudhari, small drug manufacturers account for around 40 per cent of India’s total drug market.
Even the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has opposed this provision of the bill. “If drug licensing is centralised, thousands of small and medium sector drug manufacturing companies all over India will not be able to get their licences and will be forced to close; thousands of workers will lose jobs, and the self-employed will be deprived of their livelihood,” said CPI(M) central committee member J.S. Majumdar in an article in the party’s mouthpiece, People’s Democracy, in March 2008.
But Narayana takes a different view: “Even licensed companies manufacture spurious drugs. With a central authority in place, it will be easy to maintain a database and catch those who sell drugs of low quality,” he says.
During a recent hearing of Sikka’s PIL, the Delhi High Court said that it would wait for the government to carry out the amendments before passing an order on the PIL.
Many others wait as well.
Wednesday , August 27 , 2008
www.telegraphindia.com
Gujarat HC orders Spiritual guru asaram to compensate violence victims
http://www.indlawnews.com/newsdisplay.aspx?5273d8ae-75fa-40ef-87f7-90732f2afd42
Spiritual guru Asaram Bapu received another jolt as the Gujarat High Court directed that a case be registered against his ashram here regarding the alleged attacks by his disciples on journalists on July 18.The Court has also ordered Asaram Bapu to pay compensation to the people who were injured in the citys Motera area clash, when journalists were assaulted and their cameras broken.The court directed the police to register FIRs if any person approaches them with complaints. The ruling came after an NGO, Jan Sangarsh Manch, filed a PIL demanding that the court direct the state government to probe the attacks, allegedly by the supporters and disciples of the spiritual guru.The bodies of two minor children, staying at the ashram’s gurukul, were found near the ashram on June 7. Since then the ashram is in the eye of controversy as a series of allegations against the ashram and Asaram’s son Narayan Swami, regarding his sexual and financial misconduct, have been levelled and put the spiritual father-son duo under the police scanner.UNI
8/27/2008
www.indlawnews.com
NTPC case: Ministry, counsel speak in different voices
http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=332638
After the power ministry and state-owned power utility NTPC took strong exception to the petroleum and natural gas ministry’s lawyer Tejinder Singh Doabia telling the Bombay High Court last Thursday that the RIL-NTPC deal was not a ‘concluded’ one, the petroleum ministry has asked the lawyer to withdraw his statement when the case is heard again on September 1.
The twist is that while the ministry says Doabia’s interjection in the Mukesh-Anil Ambani case (Reliance Industries Limited versus Reliance Natural Resources Limited) was beyond his brief, Doabia insists it was the ministry which instructed him to do so.
In a letter to Joint Secretary DN Narasimha Raju last Saturday, Doabia refers to an earlier e-mail by him on August 13 where he had asked the ministry for a copy of the RIL-NTPC agreement so that he could study it for arguing his case.
In this e-mail, Doabia had said: “I believe that this was not final …” and that, in any case, “the price fixed in the NTPC agreement is subject to approval of Government of India”. His letter of August 23 then goes on to say:
“In response to the above e-mail, I was instructed that there is no concluded agreement and mere letter of intent was issued.”
Doabia’s letter comes a day after he was telephoned by Raju asking for details of what had actually transpired in the Bombay High Court following media reports on the proceedings.
Doabia chose not to comment on the letter when asked by Business Standard, saying, “No, no, I will not comment … there has already been a lot of muck on this.”
Petroleum Secretary RS Pandey and Raju, however, both confirmed they had indeed received Doabia’s letter though Pandey stressed all that mattered was that Doabia had been asked to withdraw his statement.
When asked, Pandey said he had no idea who had briefed Doabia to say what he had — Doabia had been hired four or five months ago, Pandey said, and would have briefed by a variety of officials.
Raju said he had never briefed Doabia, while Pandey said he was unaware of whether his predecessor had left any instructions saying the deal was not ‘concluded’.
In 2003, Reliance had won a global bid edging out bidders like Shell to supply NTPC 12 million metric standard cubic metres per day (mmscmd) of gas for 17 years at a price of $2.34 per mmBtu (million metric British thermal units).
Towards the end of 2005, Reliance changed some of the terms of the contract — instead of an unlimited liability in case it failed to supply NTPC the requisite gas, Reliance capped its liability. NTPC refused to accept this and other changes and did not sign on the new terms.
Instead, it filed a case in the Bombay High Court asking that Reliance be told to fulfill its original contract. So, when Doabia said the NTPC-RIL deal was not a ‘concluded’ one, he effectively demolished NTPC’s entire case.
The NTPC case is important in the Reliance Industries Limited-Reliance Natural Resources Limited fight since the commercial terms of their contract were similar to those in the NTPC case. If there is no ‘concluded’ NTPC-RIL contract, there can logically be no concluded RIL-RRNL contract either.
Sunil Jain / New Delhi August 27, 2008, 5:53 IST
www.business-standard.com
Wages: court dismisses petitions
http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/27/stories/2008082750360100.htm
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions seeking a stay on the operation of a government order of the Labour and Employment department of June this year fixing a minimum wage for plantation workers.
In his order, Justice P.Jyothimani said that wages of Rs.100 per day could not be assailed as arbitrary by any stretch of imagination considering the present cost of living.
A batch of writ petitions challenged the rates of minimum wages for employment in plantations maintained for the purpose of growing cinchona, rubber, tea or coffee, issued by the government dated June 15 confirming the preliminary notification dated March 14 this year. While the government order was challenged in the writ petitions by various plantation farmers associations, individual owners had also filed some cases. The petitioners said the plantation industry was reeling under an acute financial crisis for the past eight years due to various reasons, including the government policies on globalisation and liberalisation of trade. If the managements were compelled to pay a minimum wage of Rs.102.32 and also to provide the welfare benefits, it would tantamount to double jeopardy and the managements would be forced to incur all-in-wage costs. This would further go up due to adjustment of D.A. calculated on the spiralling cost of living index.
Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008
Special Correspondent
www.hindu.com
Ministry asks lawyer to retrace stand
http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/27/stories/2008082755841400.htm
NEW DELHI: Taking a “serious view” of the submissions made by its lawyer T.S. Doabia that National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) had not concluded any deal with the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) to buy gas from its MG basin fields, the Petroleum Ministry has directed the lawyer to “retrace the stand” and apprise the Mumbai High Court about the real picture at the first given opportunity.
Stating that Mr. Doabia was not authorised to make any such submission before the court, highly placed sources in the Ministry said the lawyer’s submission took them by complete surprise. Interestingly, after the lawyer exceeding his brief in the court, Petroleum Secretary R. S. Pandey sought a report on the issue on August 22.
After the submission of the report on August 25, he issued “firm orders” that immediate steps be taken by the legal entity concerned to set the record straight before the court and apprise it at the first opportunity that the submission made by him regarding the NTPC-RIL row was not the view of the Petroleum Ministry.
The sources said Mr. Pandey directed the lawyer to file a report before the court stating the correct position and the NTPC’s stand maintained over the years.
Mr. Doabia reportedly stated that NTPC had not concluded any contract with the RIL to buy gas from D6 block at $2.34 per mmBtu (million British thermal unit.)
The NTPC-RIL deal is at the core of a dispute between the Ambani brothers, with the younger one claiming a minimum of 18 million standard cubic meters a day of gas from D6 at the $2.34 per mmBtu price bid by the RIL in a NTPC tender in 2004.
NTPC has filed a case against the RIL in the Bombay High Court to get the Mumbai-based firm to honour the bid it made in the international tender.
Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008
Sujay Mehdudia
www.hindu.com
SIT submits report to SC on post-Godhra violence
http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/0/CE550E0CB03FBE77652574B10049BF0B?OpenDocument
New Delhi, Aug 26 (PTI) The five-member special investigation team (SIT) constituted to re-investigate the post-Godhra communal riots today submitted its preliminary report to the Supreme Court.The confidential report was submitted through amicus curiae Harish Salve by the committee which was constituted by the apex court in the wake of widespread criticism that the investigations were botched to shield the culprits.These cases mainly related to the gruesome killings of minorities in places like Godhra, Gulmerg Society, Naroda Gaon, Naroda Patya, Sardarpura, ODH and Deepla Darwaza."They are doing a good job. Let us given them some more time," a three-judge bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam observed while granting time till December 31, 2008 to the SIT to complete its further investigations.Apart from the three member panel of IPS officers of Gujarat-Geeta Johri, Shivanand Jha and Ashish Bhatia, the team comprises two retired IPS officers from outside the state -- ex-CBI chief R K Raghavan and former UP IPS officer C V Satpathy.In 2003, the NHRC had filed the petition for transfer of the case and trial outside Gujarat expressing fears that it would not be conducted in a fair and transparent manner due to the hostile environment encountered by the witnesses, most of whom had turned hostile due to apparent threats and inducements.The apex court constituted the SIT on March 25 this year while dealing with the NHRC petition. PTI
www.ptinews.com
Dependents of 'blemished' employee have no right of appointments: SC
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Dependents_of_blemished_employee_have_no_right_of_appointments_SC/articleshow/3408837.cms
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that dependents of an employee punished for corrupt practices or irregularities cannot claim appointments on compassionate ground. A two-judge bench of Justices C K Thakker and D K Jain quashed the directions of the Allahabad High Court which had directed appointment of Anju Jain, a widow whose husband had died in harness. The SBI under its relevant recruitment rules had rejected Anju Jain's plea for appointment on compassionate grounds on the plea that her husband who was working at Agra had been punished with stoppage of five annual increments after being involved in financial embezzlement. However, a single judge and later a division bench of the High Court directed Anju Jain's appointment on the ground that the past conduct of her husband cannot be a reason for denying her appointment. Aggrieved by the High Court order, the State Bank of India appealed in the apex court. Upholding the appeal, the apex court said in a recent judgement the SBI was right in denying the appointment as the relevant rules had clearly rendered ineligible dependents of an employee whose service record was blemished on account of disciplinary action being taken against him. "Past conduct of an employee is undoubtedly an important consideration. We are also of the view that the State Bank was right in rejecting the prayer of the wife of the deceased employee," the apex court added.
26 Aug, 2008, 2122 hrs IST, PTI
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
Conviction on basis of extra-judicial confessions okay: SC
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Conviction_on_basis_of_extra-judicial_confessions_okay_SC/articleshow/3409585.cms
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that extra-judicial confessions of an accused could be relied upon for convicting the person. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence, said the apex court.
A bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice M K Sharma said: “An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence”. Justice Pasayat writing the verdict said: “It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.” Extra-judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before a Magistrate or court. Extra-judicial confessions are generally those that are made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or a Magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when Section 164 of the Code does not apply. The court dismissed an appeal of two convicts who were sentenced by a Trial court in Haryana on the basis of their extra-judicial confessions accepting committing a heinous crime.
27 Aug, 2008, 0257 hrs IST,Sanjay K Singh, ET Bureau
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
Abhaya case: HC slams CBI
http://keralaonline.com/news/abhaya-case-hc-slams-cbi_2562.html
Justice V. Ramkumar , during the hearing in the case expressed his strong displeasure at the wrong information given. While it is believed that 3 CDs exist
over the narco- analysis test, CBI official R.K. Agarwal , on enquiry from the Court submitted that there was only one .
The Court has expressed dissatisfation regarding the content of the CD submitted and observed that some vital information could be missing. Meanwhile, Bangalore-based Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) has also confirmed the existence three CDs in connection with the tests.
Justice V. Ramkumar also stated the Joemon Puthenpurackal has no right to interfere with the Abhaya case.
The dead body of Sister Abhaya, was found in the well of Pious X Hostel in Kottayam district in the wee hours of March 27, 1992. The case, after many twist and turns, is now being investigated by a special cell of the CBI. The investigative agency while confirming that it was a case of homicide, said it couldn’t pinpoint the culprits in the absence of conclusive evidence.
http://keralaonline.com
HC disposes petition challenging validity of TN Ordinance
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200808260940.htm
Chennai (PTI): Madras High Court on Monday disposed off a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a Tamil Nadu Ordinance, 2008, stating "that the Court cannot give its opinion in a matter which is already pending before the Supreme Court."
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A K Ganguly and Justice F M Ibrahim Kallifulla, before whom the petition filed by Citizen Civil Action Group came up for hearing, observed that "since the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, we cannot give any opinion in the matter."
According to the petitioner, the Ordinance, which dealt with unauthorised development, extended immunity from action for violation of building rules and regulations till July 26, 2009.
The petitioner contended that the Ordinance was similar to the provisions of an Ordinance of 2007, which had been already declared as unconstitutional by the High Court.
"The Ordinance attempted to make a mockery of an order of the High Court and the Supreme Court, which stated that the regularisation was only a one time measure," the petitioner submitted.
However, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) submitted that the present Ordinance came into effect the same day the validity of an Act relating to unauthorised building expired on July 27, 2008.
He submitted that the events related to the issue of the present Ordinance was informed to the petitioner and had also been brought to the notice of the Supreme Court.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
www.hindu.com
Madras HC pulls up police for lack of social responsibility
http://www.indlawnews.com/Newsdisplay.aspx?245f7f7a-7105-43c5-a41f-e3d70e838a21
'Failure to register a case under one pretext or the other would only benefit musclemen in a locality who are ever ready to deliver instant justice on the basis of hidden dealings with quid pro quo as the basic principle as well as the essential item of contract,' Madras High Court has observed.Disposing of a writ petition filed by a person seeking a direction to the authorities to register a case in respect of the murder of his father in November 2004, Justice K K Sasidaran observed that the new concept of home policing or police at your doorstep as well as launching of mobile police stations would not serve the purpose unless the police change their very outlook and approach issues with a sense of social responsibility. The Judge said the Supreme Court had time and again called upon the police to register an FIR immediately on receipt of complaint without driving a complainant from pillar to post.'Under the CrPC, the police had a statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence. The power to investigate the offence was unfettered. The investigation was subject to supervision by superior officers,' the Judge said.8/25/2008
UNI
www.indlawnews.com
HC denies bail to Chhota Shakeel relative in extortion case
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/HC-denies-bail-to-Chhota-Shakeel-relative-in-extortion-case/353486/
Mumbai, August 26: The Bombay High Court has denied bail to Chhota Shakeel's aide and relative Salim Qureshi alias Salim Fruit in an extortion case.
Qureshi, who is the husband of Chhota Shakeel's wife's sister, is accused of demanding ransom of Rs 50 lakh from a Mumbai-based businessman. The ransom amount was later negotiated down to Rs five lakh.
Qureshi was based in Dubai at the time. Police laid a trap and arrested two of his associates in Mumbai when they came to collect the ransom at a suburban hotel.
Qureshi himself was arrested in November 2006 and was booked under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
According police, Qureshi was part of Shakeel's extortion business.
The MCOCA court had earlier rejected his bail application.
Justice V K Tahilramani on Monday rejected his appeal, holding that statements the of co-accused were enough evidence for refusing him bail.
Agencies Posted online: Tuesday , August 26, 2008 at 11:52:37
www.expressindia.com
HC hears mom, daughter's plea against death
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/HC_hears_mom_daughters_plea_against_death_/articleshow/3405573.cms
MUMBAI: A mother-daughter duo who dressed up as 'Jassi' and allegedly murdered a Pune-based orthopaedic surgeon will soon get to know whether they will hang to death for their crime. The Bombay high court on Monday commenced hearing their appeal against the death sentence a sessions court awarded the duo last year. Following a request by the prosecution, a division bench of Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice Ashutosh Kumbhakoni ordered the police to transfer the convicts-Leena Devasthali (57) and her daughter Deepti (27)-from Pune's Yerawada jail to the women's prison in Byculla so that they can attend the court hearings. The prosecution case is that Leena, a lawyer, and Deepti, a cookery expert and writer, kidnapped and murdered 47-year-old Dr Deepak Mahajan by forcibly giving him an overdose of sedatives after a failed bid at a Rs 25 lakh ransom. According to the police, the case dates back to July 2006, when the duo wrote to Dr Mahajan on behalf of a fictitious organisation, Omkar Charitable Trust, offering a consultant's job. The doctor's wife, Dr Smitha Mahajan, subsequently lodged a complaint after the family started receiving ransom calls. Probe revealed that the duo had disguised themselves with thick glasses and false dentures like the popular television character Jassi from the serial Jassi Jaisi Koi Nahin. They had taken Dr Mahajan to a lodge where he was injected with a fatal dose of sedatives. The Devasthalis then allegedly cut his body into pieces. Dr Mahajan's body parts-wrapped in plastic bags-were recovered from various spots between Karjat Ghat and Nashik Phata. The doctor's head and limbs were, however, never found. The prosecution's prime witness was a private detective whom the Devasthalis had hired after telling him that they were planning to bust a kidney transplantation racket, allegedly being run by Dr Mahajan . While the prosecution examined about 46 witnesses, the mother-daughter duo argued the case in the trial court on their own. Last December, the sessions court sentenced the Devasthalis to death. Shirish Gupte, counsel for the convicts, sought results of the narco-analysis tests which were carried out on the Devasthalis . He claimed that though the police had insisted on the tests, it was not subsequently produced in court as it did not favour the prosecution case. The defence advocate raised questions on the credibility of the evidence given by main prosecution witness , saying that as per the police case, he was an accomplice in the crime.
26 Aug 2008, 0517 hrs IST,TNN
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Gujarat HC Judge transferred and Delhi HC Judge appointed
http://www.indlawnews.com/Newsdisplay.aspx?187c59af-fcfa-45c5-84c2-c342f77fdbbe
The appointment of a Delhi High Court Judge and the transfer of a Gujarat HC Judge by President Pratibha Patil.Gujarat HC Judge Arvind Mohanlal Kapadia has been transferred as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, an announcement by the Law and Justice Ministry said.The President acted after consultation with Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and directed Justice Kapadia to assume charge within 11 days-- by September 5, it said.The transfer will increase the number of vacancies in the 42-Judge Gujarat HC to 13 and leave the 40-Judge Rajasthan HC with four vacancies.Delhi HC Additional Judge Vidya Bhushan Gupta has been appointed a Judge of the High Court, another Ministry announcement said.The 48-Judge Delhi HC has seven vacancies.A count last month showed that more than 260 of 876 sanctioned judgeships in India's 21 High Courts were vacant.8/25/2008
UNI
www.indlawnews.com
CBI lied during investigation, notes Kerala HC
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/CBI-lied-during-investigation--notes-Kerala-HC/353529/
Kochi, August 26: The Kerala High Court observed on Tuesday that the CBI, which is investigating the Sister Abhaya murder case, had made a 'false statement' regarding the receipt of CDs from the Forensic Science laboratory (FSL), Bangalore.
Though CBI DYSP R K Aggarwal, the Investigating Officer in the case, reiterated that they had received only one CD from FSL on the narcoanalysis test conducted on three suspects -- two priests and a nun, the FSL Director, Lal Mohan Choudhary informed the court that three CDs had been sent to the CBI.
Justice V Ramkumar made the oral observations when the case came up before the court. The Investigating Officer was also present.
The court had directed Aggarwal to appear before the court in view of 'certain subsequent developments.' The CBI had earlier informed the court that though they had obtained 'sufficient clues' regarding the accused in the case, it was not sufficient to arraign the suspects as accused.
After viewing the three CDs sent by the FSL, the court had said it contained more information than the CD produced by the CBI in court.
The Court had also directed the Registrar General to ascertain whether the three CDs sent by FSL and CDs produced by CBI were the same.
Agencies
Posted online: Tuesday , August 26, 2008 at 03:11:50
www.expressindia.com
HC allows NGO's silent protest near Tata Steel's AGM on Aug 28
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200808261720.htm
Mumbai (PTI): The Bombay High Court on Tuesday allowed pro-environment NGO Greenpeace to hold "silent and peaceful" demonstrations near the venue of Tata Steel's AGM here on August 28, but restrained it from assembling at residences of the company's directors or at Bombay House, the headquarters of Tata Group.
Greenpeace has been protesting against Tata Steel's joint venture with L&T to develop Dhamra port on the Orissa coast, alleging that it will affect breeding of Olive Ridley turtles and the coastal environment.
Tatas had filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, seeking an order against holding demonstrations at the AGM venue as well as at Bombay House and residences of directors of the company.
Justice V M Kanade in his order, specified that Greenpeace activists can not shout slogans and obstruct anyone attending the AGM to be held at Birla Matoshree Hall.
The court said not more than 100 demonstrators each can assemble at the Liberty Cinema, Metro Cinema and Income Tax building, the spots near the AGM venue.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
www.hindu.com
1984 riots: HC assured of Jasbir’s security
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/CBI-assures-HC-to-offer-security-to-Jasbir/353580/’
New Delhi, August 26: CBI on Tuesday assured the Delhi High Court that full security would be given to US-based Jasbir Singh, a potential witness in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case involving Congress leader Jagdish Tytler.
The premier investigating agency said it would also bear the cost of security for Singh if he agrees to come to India and depose before the court as witness.
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra appearing before Justice S K Mishra contended that it would be first time that the prosecuting agency would be bearing all costs incurred for a potential witness.
“We have told him to come to India at our expense but he has refused and is insisting on video-conferencing. It is not possible as we have to first investigate whether he is a credible witness or not,” Malhotra contended adding that the investigation is a prerogative of the agency.
Singh had earlier filed a rejoinder through his counsel pleading that his testimony be recorded either in an American court or through video-conference as there is a danger to his life in case he visits India.
Singh, a California-based witness who was earlier declared non-traceable by the CBI, filed a petition seeking that the notice for his presence issued by the probe agency be quashed as he does not reside in India.
He submitted that till a decision is taken on his petition, the proceedings in the trial court be stayed and the CBI be restrained from closing the probe in the case.
The CBI, following a trial court order directing it to re-investigate Tytler’s role in the case, had issued notice to Singh on January two under Section 160 of the CrPC, which empowers the probe agency to seek presence of a witness.
A city court on December 18 last year had rejected CBI’s report seeking closure of the riot case against Tytler and directed the agency to re-investigate the case.
Agencies
Posted online: Tuesday , August 26, 2008 at 06:35:20
www.expressindia.com
Calcutta HC rejects IT claim on PILCOM
http://www.cricketnext.com/news/calcutta-hc-rejects-it-claim-on-pilcom/33743-13.html
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal by income tax department claiming that PILCOM, a committee set up to organise 1996 World Cup, had not paid taxes on prize money to international players, while admitting two petitions on payments to foreign cricket boards.
A division bench comprising Justice P C Ghose and Justice S P Mitra rejected the appeal as the IT department could not establish that it was PILCOM which paid the money to players.
The director of income tax (international taxation) had claimed that PILCOM had deducted TDS (tax deducted at source) during payments to international stars like Sanath Jayasuriya, Mark Waugh, Nathan Astle, Curtly Ambrose, Aravinda d'Silva, Moris Odumbe and Paul Strang, but had not deposited it with the IT department.
PILCOM counsels submitted that the prize money was not paid by it and that it was made by INDCOM, the Indian organising body.
As such, it was in no way responsible for payments to the IT department, they claimed.
It also pointed out that the Incomourt after four weeks.
Press Trust Of India
Posted on Aug 26, 2008 at 19:31
www.cricketnext.com
Chiranjeevi gets Supreme Court nod for August 26 Tirupati rally
http://www.screenindia.com/news/Chiranjeevi-gets-Supreme-Court-nod-for-August-26-Tirupati-rally/353530/
The Supreme Court has given Telugu superstar Chiranjeevi a much-needed respite as it declined to impose a ban on his much-hyped public meeting scheduled for August 26 in the temple town of Tirupati, where he is likely to announce the launch of his new political party.“They are holding a meeting. What objections have you got?” a Bench headed by Justice B N Aggarwal questioned senior counsel Nageswara Rao appearing for Intellectual Forum, an Andhra Pradesh-based NGO which has filed the petition.
The three-judge Bench rejected the plea of Intellectual Forum that the meeting should not be allowed as it is being conducted on a tank bed.The counsel argued that the use of bulldozers for clearing shrubs in the tank bed would destroy the vegetation in the area. But the Apex Court observed that even if there was water and the meeting was being held in boats, the organisation should not have any objections.
The NGO had sought a ban on the public meeting on the ground that the venue, Avilala Tank area, at the foothills of the historic temple town was a protected tank bed. The tank is believed to have been made by noted King Sri Krishna Devarya in 1500 AD.Citing an Apex Court ruling in 2006, the NGO submitted that despite a ban on construction activity in the tank bed, men and machinery were being used extensively on the tank bed for creating infrastructural facilities to conduct the meeting, which is likely to be attended by 10 lakh people. According to the NGO, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority had earlier refused to grant permission for a public meeting at the place. Later, the actor approached the district collector who granted him permission.
Express news service Posted online: Friday , August 29, 2008 at 1517 hrs
www.screenindia.com
Writ against city's metro rail project
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Hyderabad/Writ_against_citys_metro_rail_project/articleshow/3405312.cms
HYDERABAD: C Ramachandraiah of Centre for Economic and Social Studies and Omim Mamickshaw Debara of Forum for a Better Hyderabad filed a writ petition in the AP High Court on Monday, seeking its intervention to restrain the authorities from going ahead with the metro rail project in the city. Their argument was that the construction cannot go ahead without obtaining environmental clearance from the union ministry of environment and forests. The petitioners pleaded with the court that the metro rail project should not be cleared till the public and the interested persons are heard, they said. Public should first be informed of all the details as indicated in the AP Municipal Tramways (Construction, operation and maintenance) about this project, they contended.
26 Aug 2008, 0347 hrs IST,TNN
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Allegations baseless, says Veerapandi
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IET20080826023627&Page=T&Title=Southern+News+-+Tamil+Nadu&Topic=0
CHENNAI: State Agriculture Minister Veerapandi S Arumugham on Monday contended that the writ petition filed in the Madras High Court against him was highly motivated and it was mainly intended to serve the cause of his political opponents.In his counter-affidavit filed in the High Court in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) writ petition from S Manokaran, national general secretary of the Indian Association of People’s Lawyers, Arumugham said that the petition was neither maintainable nor could be filed as a PIL. It was falsely filed for the purpose of giving inconvenience, adverse propaganda and to cause trouble to him.The allegations were vague and bald. The High Court had dealt with the same issues, one relating to demolition of the 184-year-old Collectorate building and the other in respect of eviction of 35 families from the Angalammal Colony near Salem bus stand, on two earlier occasions and passed orders.The present PIL was a third one filed to waste the High Court’s time. It was nothing but an abuse of process of law and misuse of the judicial forum for some ulterior motive.He never exhibited his muscle or manpower and misused his position, he said and sought to dismiss the PIL with an exemplary cost of Rs 50,000.
Aug 27, 2008
Tuesday August 26 2008 02:36 IST
Express News Service
www.newindpress.com
Army should dispose of explosives: court
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Army-should-dispose-of-explosives-court/353429/
Chandigarh, August 25 A PIL seeking directions to the Union government, Ludhiana Deputy Commissioner and the Custom authorities to dispose of a “huge stock of explosives” lying at Dhandari Kalan Dry Port, Ludhiana, since October 2004 came up for resumed hearing on Monday.
Even as the counsel for the Union government said it was the state government’s responsibility to dispose of the stock, Chief Justice Tirath Singh Thakur observed that the Army should dispose of the explosives.
The petitioner, advocate H C Arora, had submitted that according to information received by him under the Right to Information Act from Assistant Commissioner of Customs Container Freight Station (CONCOR), Ludhiana, the stock of explosives includes 55 stick bombs, 365 grenades, 54 boxes of bottle bombs, one box of ballistic cartridges, 215 golas (tope) medium, 857 mortar shells, 234 rockets, 1 drum magazine filled with live cartridges, one box of medium cartridges, three large bomb shells, 17 gun golas (32 miles), 6908 cartridges MMG, 1007 medium gun shells, 189 small gun shells, one unknown bomb, 392 small gola (tope) cells, 891 anti-aircraft cartridges, 239 cartridges (A/T), 30 base rockets and 11 grenades (A/P).
Express News Service
Posted online: Tuesday , August 26, 2008 at 03:55:28
www.expressindia.com
Percentile system: After split verdict, third judge to hear matter
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Percentile-system-After-split-verdict-third-judge-to-hear-matter/353452/
Mumbai, August 25 After the division bench hearing the PIL regarding the implementation of percentile system deferred in their verdict, the matter now will have to be heard by a third judge.
The split verdict came after a division bench of Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice A P Deshpande passed two verdicts as they did not reach similar conclusion.
While Chief Justice Kumar quashed the government resolution implementing the percentile formula, Justice Deshpande held that it is permissible and not illegal.
The court had earlier reserved the verdict on the PIL challenging the percentile system which sought to ‘normalise’ marks obtained by students of various boards for admission to junior colleges.
The public interest litigation was filed by a parent of an ISCE student, aggrieved with the newly implemented normalization policy for admission to junior colleges.
Chief Justice Kumar in his judgement restrained the government from acting upon the resolution but stated that the admissions already given on the basis of the formula will not be disturbed.
“Remaining vacant seats and additional 10 per cent seats sanctioned and allowed by state particularly in the preferential colleges shall not be filled upon the basis of the percentile formula,” Chief Justice Kumar held.
“The admission would be strictly on merit-cum-choice with reference to the percentage of marks obtained by students in qualifying examination,” he added.
Chief Justice Kumar, however, concluded that “till judgment is pronounced by a third judge, the state injuncted from making any further admissions” with certain exceptions and disposed the petition.
Justice Deshpande on the other hand held that “the introduction of the statistical formula of “percentile” goes to achieve normalization of percentage of marks secured by the students from different boards and hence is not violative of Article 14 of Constitution”.
“I also hold that assuming that the percentage formula extends some benefit or preference to the students from SSC board the same is permissible and not illegal,” Deshpande held and dismissed the petition.
During the course of hearing, court did not stay the admission process. As a result the admission process is over in most colleges. But court had specified that the whole process would be subject to the outcome of the judgement.
Government pleader Jyoti Pawar, had earlier told the court there were still vacancies in several colleges in Mumbai. At the state level there were 97,239 vacancies, while in the city there were around 1,900 vacancies.
But the court asked whether these vacancies were in colleges not preferred by the students?
The government lawyer conceded that most of the “eminent” colleges in the city had no vacancies.
Court had asked the government to furnish list of “colleges preferred by the students”, and also aggregate figures of intake capacity and admitted students at the state level, before reserving the judgement.
The percentile system suggests re-marking of all students by calculating average marks of the top 10 scores of certain divisions (like Mumbai and Pune) in the state and considered as ‘A’.
The actual percentage scored by a student will be noted as ‘M’ and the revised scores will then be calculated by the formula ‘M/A’*100.
Express News Service
Posted online: Tuesday , August 26, 2008 at 04:56:25
www.expressindia.com
High Court decides to vet Paripoornan panel report
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IER20080826012248&Page=R&Title=Kerala&Topic=0
KOCHI: A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Monday directed the Court’s Registry to separately number the report of Justice Paripoornan panel and place it as such before the court for considering the various suggestions and recommendations made by the Commission for revamping the administration of the Travancore Devaswom Board.The Bench comprising Justice P R Raman and Justice T R Ramachandran Nair declined to consider the correctness of the findings and recommendations of the high-power commission headed by Justice K S Paripoornan while considering the writ petition filed in 2006 by C Radhakrishnan and N Aravindakshan of Alappuzha alleging irregularities and corruption in administration of the Board and praying to remove the then Board members.The court said that the recommendations would be considered in appropriate proceedings since they related to various aspects concerning the administration of the Board.The Bench declined to expunge the adverse observations made by the Commission against thantri Kandararu Mohanaru, Sabarimala executive officer Unnikrishnan, chief engineer Ravikumar and Devaswom commissioner, Satchidanandan and others.The commission in page 90 of the report had expressed the view that the thantri was not aware of Vedas, he had no knowledge of Sanskrit and doubted his knowledge of ‘pooja vidhies’.The court said that it could not sit in appeal over the findings of the Commission as the Commission came to the finding while considering the allegations against the selection of ‘shanthis’ in various temples by a committee in which thantri Mohanaru was the subject expert and knowledge of poojas and Sanskrit being of the essential qualification of the aspirants.The court made it clear that any finding of the Commission against any person would be subject to the right of that person to vindicate his grievances in appropriate proceedings and will be allowed to adduce evidence in his defence if the government or the Board initiated any proceedings on the basis of the findings of the Commission.The court said that as the government and the Board had expressed their agreement with the findings of the Commission it is up to them to take steps regarding the findings by the Commission on the allegations which had been found correct.The court turned down the plea that it should re-assess the evidence relied upon by the Commission to arrive at correctness of the findings. “We cannot go into such an exercise in his proceedings (writ proceedings) without adducing the evidence, the court said.Tuesday August 26 2008 01:23 IST
Express News Service
www.newindpress.com
Most web users have ‘Scrabulous’ blocked
http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/26/stories/2008082656952000.htm
KOLKATA: The networking site, Facebook, has restricted the popular “add-on” application, ‘Scrabulous’ to most users after receiving a letter from Mattel Inc, Jayant Agarwalla, one of the creators of Scrabulous.com, told The Hindu here on Saturday.
Mattel Inc. owns Scrabble rights outside Canada and the United States of America and had approached the Indian courts in February 2008, seeking an order for taking down Scrabulous from Facebook and other servers.
The brothers, Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla, and their web-design and technology company, R J Software, were previously served a lawsuit by game-making giant Hasbro Inc., owner of Scrabble rights in Canada and the U.S. , at a New York federal court for violating its copyright and trademarks. Hasbro also sent a notice demanding that Facebook remove the application from the site. “Facebook took the unfortunate decision to restrict most users from accessing Scrabulous on August 22, in response to a ‘take down notice’ from Mattel on August 14,” said Mr. Jayant.
Mr. Jayant said, “The High Court had reserved judgement in this matter after hearing both parties. It surprises us that Mattel chose to direct Facebook to take down Scrabulous without waiting for the High Court’s decision.” He also sounded disappointed with Facebook as he said, “It is even more astonishing that Facebook, which claims to be fair and neutral party, took the step even though they were fully aware of the circumstances under which the Mattel letter was sent.”
“We now await the decision of the High Court and shall accordingly decide our future course of action regarding Scrabulous,” Mr. Jayant asserted.
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008
Raktima Bose
www.hindu.com
High Court to hold day to day hearing
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/High-Court-to-hold-day-to-day-hearing/353374/
Judge’s appointment case: bar council to step in
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the objection raised by the Additional Solicitor General of India Ashok Nigam on Monday. According to Nigam, the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Dr Satish Chandra as the High Court judge.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Shushil Harkauli and Justice Vikram Nath, has decided to hold day to day hearing on the petition filed by Advocate M C Gupta, which alleges that the appointment is unconstitutional.
The court accepted the plea of the Counsel for the petitioner Senior Advocate Ravi Kiran Jain for a day to day hearing with a rider. In this case, if either of the two judges was absent, the case would be heard on the next date.
In a significant development, president of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association V C Mishra requested the court to allow the association to become a party to the case. He informed the court that the bar had decided to intervene in the case and would file an application on Thursday.
Additional Solicitor General of India Ashok Nigam and Sambhu Chopra, Counsel for the Union of India, and S P Gupta, Counsel for the Allahabad High Court, were also present. Earlier, two division benches of the court had refused to hear the case.
In his petition, Gupta alleged that Dr Satish Chadra had neither put in 10 years of practice as a High Court advocate nor had he held a judicial office under the HC, as per the norms of the Constitution.
The petitioner says:
Counsel for the petitioner, meanwhile, said that information on the official website of the High Court about Satish Chandra was scanty, as compared to the information available on other judges. Only one relevant fact revealed on the website regarding Satish Chandra was that he had worked as a judicial member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner searched the official website of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, where his personal profile and career profile was fed. The petitioner found that the career profile of Satish Chandra baffling and full of gaps and loose ends. For instance, it does not mention as to from where he obtained his LLB, LLM or LD degrees. It also does not throw any light on his career as an advocate. Nine years from 1975 to 1984 are explained by mentioning that either he was with the Law Commission of India or was the constitutional advisor to the Government of Zanzibar. In between, he has also taught in certain law colleges, names of which have not been mentioned. The petitioner challenged the information that of Chandra being a High Court judge of Zanzibar, Tanzania. His name was also not enrolled as a High Court bar member, said the petitioner. Being a member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as per terms in Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, does not amount to holding a judicial office belonging to the judicial service of the High Court.
Vijay Pratap Singh
Posted online: Tuesday , August 26, 2008 at 02:07:03
www.expressindia.com
Not just gas, Ambani brothers have at least a dozen issues to resolve
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Company/Corporate_Trends/Not_just_gas_Ambani_brothers_have_at_least_a_dozen_issues_to_resolve/articleshow/msid-3404849,curpg-1.cms
MUMBAI: It’s not just gas that the Ambani brothers are fighting over, there’s much more. A string of disputes between the brothers, which were till now not in the public domain, have surfaced in the documents produced in the Bombay High Court where Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries (RIL) and Anil Ambani’s Reliance Natural Resources (RNRL) are locked in a battle over the supply of gas from RIL’s KG basin. These documents reveal that the Ambani brothers are yet to sort out at least a dozen issues three years after they signed a memorandum of understanding to divide the assets of the Reliance empire. These are in addition to their tussle over the supply of gas involving $50 billion. The long list of unresolved issues include: immovable properties such as the building in Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), referred to as the Fortune 2k building, a property in Mehrauli on the Delhi-Gurgaon highway, Richmond Road property in Bangalore, some residential flats occupied by RIL employees, and moveable properties such as shares of some companies which formed a part of the Anil Ambani group after the division of assets in June 2005.
The combined value of these assets could be a few thousands crores. The shareholding of Reliance Welfare Association (RWF) in RNRL, Reliance Capital (RCL), Reliance Communications (RCOM) and Reliance Infrastructure (Ref Infra) was to be transferred to Anil Ambani, according to the Anil Ambani Group’s version of events. RWF holds nearly 12 lakh shares in each of these companies. On Monday’s closing, the total valuation of these shares stood at Rs 330 crore. E-mails sent to both the groups on August 20 remained unanswered. RIL and ADAG spokespersons declined to comment on the issues. However, a source close to ADA Group told ET: “We have not received a single property as promised in the MoU. They (RIL) are building Reliance Retail malls in some of them. Also, they are occupying most of the Reliance Centre in Ballard Estate, which they were supposed to vacate after the demerger. The cost of these properties put together would easily surpass few thousand crore.” RNRL counsel Mukul Rohatgi told ET last week: “We would let go of all these issues if they (RIL) agree to give us a firm quantity of 28 mmscmd of gas at $2.34 per mmbtu for 17 years.” Besides the dispute over the supply of gas, the list of other thorny issues include the no-compete agreement and agreement over use of the brand.
After a prolonged and bitter battle, the Ambani brothers signed a memorandam of understanding to divide assets between themselves on June 18, 2005. The broad contours of the agreement suggested that the Reliance empire would be divided between the brothers, handing over the oil and gas business to Mukesh while Anil would get power, telecom, financial services and entertainment business. Some properties were to go to Anil to compensate him for the lower valuation of his share of business compared to Mukesh. The list of properties, which were supposed to be handed over by Mukesh to Anil, are mentioned in an e-mail sent by legal firm Amarchand Mangaldas & Suresh Shroff managing partner Cyril Shroff to some key executives of both the camps, including Mukesh and Anil. The other recipients of the mail were ICICI Bank’s chairman KV Kamath and its joint MD Kalpana Morparia who had helped Kokilaben, mother of Mukesh and Anil, to divide the Reliance empire. This e-mail formed a part of the exhibit filed by RIL with the high court in the case against RNRL. The e-mail, dated March 1, 2006, listed the 19 outstanding issues. A source close to the development said though some issues are resolved, most of them are yet to be sorted out.
26 Aug, 2008, 0000 hrs IST,Piyush Pandey, ET Bureau
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
Jaipur blasts get official SIMI link, SC extends ban
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/353289.html
Arrest in Lucknow Computer centre operator Shahbaz held
JAIPUR, LUCKNOW, AUGUST 25: On the day the Supreme Court extended by six weeks its interim order continuing the ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), the Rajasthan police announced a breakthrough in the Jaipur blasts investigation, saying they had arrested SIMI activist, Shahbaz Hussain, in Lucknow and were bringing him to Jaipur.
Police claimed Hussain was involved in planning the May 13 Jaipur blasts which left 68 people dead and another 150 wounded. They traced him on the basis of information provided by Sajid Mansuri, a SIMI activist arrested for the July 26 Ahmedabad serial blasts. Abrar Ali, a medical student, had recently told police that Mansuri alias Salim was in Jaipur for two days before the blasts.
Rajasthan Additional DGP A K Jain, who heads the SIT probing the blasts case, said: “We believe this is a major breakthrough as Hussain is possibly the one who planned the Jaipur terror strike. He was arrested in Lucknow on Sunday night and will be brought to Jaipur either Monday night or Tuesday morning.”
“We managed to get information about Hussain from Sajid Mansuri in Ahmedabad. Mansuri and Hussain could be the main links to the Jaipur blasts case,” Jain said. DIG Saurav Srivastava, who had been questioning SIMI suspects in Ahmedabad, is returning to Rajasthan.
Shahbaz, who hails from Kot Bazar locality of Bhadohi district, was held near the Women’s College in Maulviganj in Lucknow. He runs a computer centre in Maulviganj. “As per our information, Shahbaz can disclose names of the persons who purchased bicycles that were used in the blasts,” UP police sources said.
The sources claimed Shahbaz, during his brief interrogation in Lucknow, admitted to links with the Safdar Nagori group of SIMI and even attended a meeting organised in Madhya Pradesh last year.
Express News Service
Posted online: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 0109 hrs
www.indianexpress.com
SC to hear UP sugarcane price case on September1
http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=332470
The Supreme Court today decided to hear the case related to Uttar Pradesh state advised price (SAP) for sugarcane in the current crop year on September 1.
The case was to be taken up on Monday as the apex court, in its previous hearing, had adjourned the hearing by a week. The case relates to UP Sugar Mills Association’s challenge to the Allahabad High Court order upholding the support price set by the state government.
The high court, in its earlier interim order, had allowed mills to pay Rs 110 a quintal, but had later revised its own order and asked mills to pay Rs 125 a quintal state advised price for normal varieties.
Two sugar mills — Bajaj Hindusthan and Basti Sugar Mills — had filed writs in the high court, challenging the SAP was much higher than the central government’s support price. The centre has fixed a statutory minimum price of Rs 81.18 a quintal for the current sugar year.
Newswire18 / New Delhi August 26, 2008, 3:21 IST
www.business-standard.com
SC extends Simi ban for six more weeks
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/PoliticsNation/SC_extends_Simi_ban_for_six_weeks/articleshow/3405318.cms
The Supreme Court on Monday extended its stay on the tribunal order which lifted the ban on Simi. “We are extending the stay on the Tribunal’s order by another six weeks,” said a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam. Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium appearing for Centre said that members of Simi were indulged in the anti-national activities even after the ban imposed on the outfit. It was glossed over by the Tribunal, said Subramanium. In support, Subramanium said that the there were 7 serial blasts in local trains of Mumbai and its suburb on September 11, 2006. Simi was involved as a major conspirator in this case, said Subramanium. The ASG further cited another criminal case registered against members of Simi. Perusing the additional affidavit filed by Centre, Subramanium drawn attention to the fact of the case. According to Centre, on August 1, 2006, information was received that member of Simi, namely, Shabbir from Malegaon and Nasif from Mumbai were preparing for committing some acts of sabotage and disrupting public peace during Ganesh Utsav festival in the commercial capital with an intention to cause damage to life and public property. A case was registered against them which is still pending, said government. This was, however, opposed by Dr Shahid Badr, who was the president of Simi till September, 2001 when it was banned for the first time. Advocate Kamini Jaiswal appearing for Badr said, all the plea of government on the number of cases against the members of Simi was a mere allegations. The government’s claim that 176 cases were registered against the members of Simi in Madhya Pradesh and 77 cases in Rajasthan was a mere allegations, said Ms Jaiswal. Further, the central government was expected to produce the material before the Tribunal in support of its notification. Instead it said that the state governments were to produce such material, said Ms Jaiswal. “The state should act fair in dealing with such cases” , said Jaiswal. Countering this, Subramanium said that even the Tribunal while quashing government’s notification of February 7, 2008 had acknowledged that there were increase in violent activities between 2006-08 . The Tribunal had said so on the basis of the material places before it, said Subramanium. Subramanium, however, picked holes in the findings of the Tribunal. It failed to appreciate the ‘background note’ , ‘cabinet note’ and ‘intelligence reports’ before arriving at its decision to lift the ban on Simi, said Subramanium. “The intelligence sources and secret surveillance conducted by the police authorities has made it clear that the accused persons are members of the Respondent organisation (Simi) and have nexus also with international terrorists outfits,” said government in its additional affidavit.
26 Aug, 2008, 0351 hrs IST, OUR POLITICAL BUREAU
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
SC frustrates Shahabuddin bid to play 'Muslim victim
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/SC_frustrates_Shahabuddin_bid_to_play_Muslim_victim/articleshow/3405375.cms
The Supreme Court on Monday thwarted the attempts of RJD MP Mohammad Shahabuddin to play the ‘Muslim victim’ card by rejecting his contention that he was being ‘targeted by his rivals’ because he was a Muslim. A bench comprising Justice R V Raveendran and Justice J M Panchal dismissed the special leave petition of the jailed RJD MP, seeking bail in the case. “In an arms act case, the maximum sentence is 7 years. You (Shahabuddin) have served only a little over two-and-half years” said Justice Raveendran speaking for the bench. Advocate Pranay Ranjan appearing for petitioner MP said that the prosecution was deliberately delaying proceedings to keep the accused in jail in the case. Shahabuddin, arrested from his official residence in Delhi, was put on transit remand . He was brought to Siwan jail on November 6, 2005, in connection with the Arms Act case registered against him at Hussainganj police station. Police had allegedly recovered sophisticated foreign-made arms from his Pratappur house during the raids. The MP, who is serving life imprisonment in a kidnapping and murder case relating to a CPI-ML activist, said that “under the influence of his political rivals, the district administration and state police has implicated him in several false and concocted criminal cases, with the motive to brand him as an extremist as he belongs from the minority community.” “The petitioner is an elected member of Parliament from the constituency of Siwan , Bihar. He is popular leader of the state of Bihar as well as of Siwan district and has been elected from the same constituency for four consecutive terms. He has worked hard in all spheres for the welfare and growth of the people of Siwan. Due to his activist personality and popularity among the people of state of Bihar, his political rivals are jealous and indulged in defaming him on different counts,” the RJD MP had said. eBay chief get relief from apex court The Supreme Court on Monday stayed proceedings against eBay chairman Avinash Bajaj for auctioning of a pornographic video clip at Baazee.com, where he was then managing director, reports Sanjay K Singh from New Delhi. The company was later acquired by eBay. A bench comprising Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Markandey Katju asked Delhi Police why proceedings against Bajaj should not be quashed. It has been given eight weeks to reply to the notice. Appearing for Mr Bajaj, senior counsel Arun Jaitley asked: Can a per-son be prosecuted for a merely listing of the alleged clip on the portal which was later removed when it was found pornographic?” What is interesting was that the company was not made an accused in the case but its then MD was made, which is illegal, contended Mr Jaitley. Mr Bajaj in his special leave petition said that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, does not define the term obscenity. Can liability be fixed on him for merely ‘listing’ of the video clip even if it was obscene, asked Bajaj.
26 Aug, 2008, 0409 hrs IST,Sanjay K Singh, ET Bureau http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
Corpn gets HC notice on two roadside temples
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/6453-corpn-gets-hc-notice-two-roadside-temples.html
CHENNAI: Two pavement temples - both "badly affecting pedestrian movement and free flow of traffic" on NSC Bose Road in Parrys Corner area - have been brought under judicial scrutiny. Both of these structures have been provided with electricity and telephone connections, says a public interest writ petition filed by Traffic K R Ramasamy. The first bench comprising chief justice A K Ganguly and justice F M Ibrahim Kalifulla, admitted the petition, and ordered the Chennai Corporation to file its response within three weeks. The petitioner, who has filed several PILs to decongest the George Town area in the past, now seeks a direction to the Chennai Corporation commissioner and secretary of the municipal administration department to demolish the temples and ensure free movement of pedestrians and vehicles. While the first temple is located just adjacent to the main gate of the Madras high court, the other is located on the Armenian Street-NSC Bose Road junction. A godown has been constructed on the rear side of the second temple , said the petitioner.Ramasamy, referring to the details obtained from the civic authorities following an application under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, said the competent official of Zone II had given a reply confirming that both the structures were encroachments. Also, officials have issued eviction orders under Section 362 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act 1919, and on July 7, the civic body had issued a demolition order, Ramasamy said. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/C...pn_gets_HC_notice_on_two_roadside_temples_/articleshow/3398319.cms
as reported in Times of India, 24 Aug 2008, TNN
www.rtiindia.org
Company cannot be sued through 4 different officials: HC
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Company_cannot_be_sued_through_4_different_officials_HC/articleshow/3399484.cms
MUMBAI: In a recent case, Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court imposed cost on one of the parties before it for unnecessarily impleading four officers of the same company in its suit. "A company cannot be sued through four different officers on account of wrong impleadment lot of time of this Court as well as that of the trial Court has been wasted," Justice A P Lavande observed. The original suit, pending before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, was filed by Amar Sales Corporation (ASC) against Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd.(now Philips India Ltd.). While making Pieco a respondent, ASC impleaded Pieco's chairman-cum-managing director, its general manager, its executive director and one of its sales executives R N Mishra in the suit. During the trial, Pieco's lawyers claimed that Mishra was actually assisting ASC, the plaintiff. So the Court rejected Mishra's evidence from Pieco's side. Mishra challenged this order before the High Court.
24 Aug, 2008, 1507 hrs IST, PTI
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
No disability pension for Armyman hurt in personal work: HC
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Delhi/No_disability_pension_for_Armyman_hurt_in_personal_work_HC/articleshow/3401178.cms
NEW DELHI: An Army man cannot claim disability pension for an injury resulting from an activity not connected with military service, the Delhi High Court ruled. "Injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify a claim for disability pension. This is regardless of whether the injury occurred at the place of posting or during the working hours," the special Bench observed. A Bench comprising justices Vikramjit Sen, Sanjeev Khanna and S L Bhayana, passed the verdict following a difference of opinion between the judges in a division Bench. The court dismissed a plea of Ex Naik Dilbagh for disability pension in addition to family pension. In a petition, Dilbagh claimed for the pension after receiving head injury in an accident on Delhi-Panipat road while he was going for the his child's admission in 1993.25 Aug 2008, 0606 hrs IST,PTI
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Percentile case: HC gives a split verdict
http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=464369&sid=REG
Mumbai, Aug 25: The Bombay High Court on Monday gave a split verdict on petitions challenging the percentile system, introduced this year for Standard 11th admissions. Since two judges gave differing judgements, the case will be referred to a third judge. Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar, in his judgment, set aside the government resolution, which introduced the system and said that admissions already given cannot be disturbed. Admissions to the remaining seats will not be conducted according to percentile formula, Chief Justice said. On the other hand, Justice A P Deshpande, while dismissing the petition, held that the percentile formula did not violate the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution. As a result, the issue of the percentile system will remain inconclusive till the third judge gives his ruling. The petitions filed by Francis Louis Zaviers and others, objects to the percentile system which seeks to normalise marks obtained by SSC board students and students from other boards such as the ICSE and CBSE. The petitioner contended that the system gave unfair advantage to the SSC board students in the admission process. Bureau Report
www.zeenews.com
HC issues notice to Ten Sports for not showing matches on DD
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200808251969.htm
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Monday issued show-cause notice to Ten Sports for not sharing feed of India- Sri Lanka ODI matches with Doordarshan in alleged violation of the government's notification on content sharing with Prasar Bharati.
A Bench comprising Justice Manmohan Sarin and Justice Veena Birbal sought response from Ten Sports by Tuesday on a petition filed by a cricket buff Ravi Dev Gupta seeking direction to Prasar Bharati to telecast the remaining (two) matches of the current ODI series.
"Show-cause notice be issued to Ten Sports as to why this court should not prohibit Ten Sports from telecasting matches scheduled for tomorrow and on August 29 unless they (Ten Sports) share live feed with Prasar Bharati," the court said.
D K Singh, counsel for the petitioner, contended that government had issued notification on October 3, 2007 under Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing of Feed with Prasar Bharati) notifying ODIs and T-20 cricket matches involving India as matches of national importance -- feed of which should be shared with Prasar Bharati by the respective telecast rights owner.
Counsel for Prasar Bharati Rajeev Sharma informed the court that on the request of public broadcaster, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued notice to Ten Sports for violating Sports Broadcasting Signals notification and threatened to cancel the channel's licence.
Directing the registry and the counsel for Centre to send the show-cause notice to the sports channel, the court indicated that it would pass ex-parte interim order if the channel failed to file its response by Tuesday
Monday, August 25, 2008
www.hindu.com
Housing scam: Delhi HC guidelines for allotment of flats
http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=464393&sid=REG
New Delhi, Aug 25: The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to start the process for allotment of flats in those group housing societies which were given a clean chit by the CBI in the housing scam case. Formally issuing the guidelines for the allotment, a Division Bench of Justice Manmohan Sarin and Justice Veena Birbal appointed a new committee headed by retired Justice R C Chopra for approval of the recommendations submitted by the societies and the Registrar's office. Asking 58 group housing societies which were given a clean chit by the CBI, to furnish all information along with the list of members to the office of Registrar within 15 days, the Bench said the committee would submit a report for issuing an appropriate order to DDA for draw of lots. The societies were also directed to publish in news papers proposals regarding the clearance of membership for allotment of flats by draw of lots as approved by the Registrar in addition to submit a revised proposal, if any, in a month after the publication to the Registrar. After receiving complete documents from the societies, the document would be scrutinised by the Registrar office in 15 days and at the time of verification, an authorised person of the concerned society shall be present, the Bench said in a judgement. Following the examination of records, the Registrar office should forward, the matter to be referred to the committee, comprising officials of RCS officials, set up under the Delhi Co-operative Society rule, the court said. The bench directed the Registrar to submit a report before Justice Chopra committee which would finally approve the proposals and this very committee would submit a report before the court for appropriate order. The CBI had registered FIRs against Senior RCS Officer for allegedly manipulating membership lists of some existing housing societies and registering new societies in fake names in connivance with alleged middleman, S P Saxena, and some other government officials. However, after the probe the CBI found no discrepancies in the records related to 58 societies and gave a clean chit to them. Following CBI's report, the Court directed it to start the process for allotment of flats in these societies. Bureau Report
www.zeenews.com
Jermyn Capital moves SC against SEBI ban
http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?tp=on&autono=41571
Press Trust of India / New Delhi July 04, 2008, 19:09 IST
Dubai-based investment firm Jermyn Capital LLC today moved the Supreme Court challenging market regulator SEBI's decision to ban it from trading in the Indian securities market for its alleged association with Ketan Parekh, the main accused in the 2001 stock market scam.
A bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir after brief hearing gave two weeks time to the company to file an affidavit giving details about their sale transactions in the market between May to June 2006 after the sectoral tribunal had on May 8, 2006 allowed it to trade only through the stock exchanges and registered stock brokers in accordance with law and credit the sale proceeds in the bank account maintained with ICICI Bank.
It had also directed the bank to put the money in a fixed deposit.
Jermyn, a sub-account of FII Taib Bank, has challenged the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) decision that upheld the ban imposed by the regulator on the ground that the action was justified as the investment company had close links with Dharmesh Doshi and Parekh, involved in the 2001 stock market scam.
According to the company, it had been held that it was not a 'fit and proper' person even though there were no charges against it and its directors.
Denying allegations against Doshi, Jermyn counsel Jayant Bhushan said that he was one of the directors of Jermyn UK and no charges had been framed against him in any court of law till now and the UK's Financial Services Authority was fully aware about the proceedings against Doshi in India. Besides, he had no association with Parekh, he added.
While stating that SAT had made adverse remarks against its chairman Hugh Hamilton Andrews, it said that such findings were "perverse and arbitrary" and sought to malign his reputation by inferring upon his alleged closeness with Doshi due to his professional association.
www.business-standard.com
FAILURES OF INDIAN JUDICIARY
http://indiapolicelaw.blogspot.com/2008/07/failures-of-indian-judiciary.html
Editorial : WHO WILL BELL THE CORRUPT FEW AMONG INDIAN JUDICIARY & INDIAN POLICE ?When the fence itself eats into the crop which it has to protect , when the doctor himself kills the patient whom he has to treat , when the mother supposed protect her child kills it herself , when the king supposed to protect his subjects himself kills them , WHEN THE POLICE & JUDGE SUPPOSED TO GIVE JUSTICE , PROTECT HIS CITTIZENS HIMSELF MEATS OUT INJUSTICE , where to appeal ? it is nothing but anarchy. These corrupt few are also bringing disgrace to the august institutions they occupy & are also making contempt of those very offices they hold & making contempt of citizens of India.Who will dare to bell the fat , corrupt cats & save democracy in India.Your's sincerely,Nagaraj.M.R.INDIAN JUDICIARY UNDER RTI PURVIEWThe corrupt among public servants always give a ruse , reason to escape from accountability. Recently government of Karnataka under president's rule has enacted a rule limiting the number of informations sought in RTI application to 3 . already bureaucrats are successful in exempting official file notings from RTI purview. These file notings are the basis on which official decisions are taken by superiors , so if one wants to know the intention behind an official decision it is imperative to know all the notings.Police apply 3rd degree torture on accussed , ask questions for hours in the name of extracting truth , the same police are afraid to answer questions lest the truth come out. In the courts of law , numerous questions are asked , cross examination done to extract truth . if one remains silent it amounts to confession / agreeing to all charges leveled. In courts of law , during cross examination one must give straight forward answers , one cann't give vague answers nor state excuses for not answering a question. If one doesn't give straight forward answers that also is considered as agrreing to the charges levelled. The courts go to any length to extract answers to it's questions , take for example rape cases in the backdrop of our Indian tradition. In the courts of law , the rape victim - woman who has already suffered injustice , shame is made to depose before male judges , lawyers who are total strangers and made to repeatedly explain how the crime of rape was committed. So once again the victim is made to suffer more shame in the society. For the courts answers to questions , cross examination , legal procedures is more important than honour of woman. The very same judges are afraid to answer questions , cross examination under one pretext or the other lest the truth come out. Even our people's representatives – MPs , MLAs , etc are afraid to speak out truth , to honour RTI act citing legal privileges , etc. in India , during appointment of persons to government service back ground check & clearance by police is mandatory & during appointment into sensitive defense , space , atomic energy establishments , etc apart from police verification , investigation by intelligence agencies is a must. No such thing for our MLAs , MPs . However now criminalization of politics is almost in India , some of the accussed are drafting laws like IPC , Indian defense rules , police code , purviews of judiciary , etc. they are drafting laws to legalise their crimes. The election commission of India is not properly verifying the affidavits of candidates , also the vigilance authorities , lokayukthas are not properly verifying the affidavits of sitting MLAs , MPs , etc. More than RTI ACT , to seek information is part of every Indian citizen's fundamental rights & human rights , RTI ACT is just fulfilling that right partly & fixing a time frame. Nobody , no constitutional functionary is higher than Indian citizens , nobody's privileges or any laws prevailing over the fundamental rights & duties of Indian citizens is constitutional , just or legal . The shame is that even after 60 years of independence , FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & DUTIES OF INDIAN CITIZENS is observed more in breach than implementation , by our public servants including the judiciary .Hereby , we urge all the public servants – judges , police , people's representatives to honour RTI ACT , to honour Indian citizen's fundamental & human rights and to facilitate them to perform their fundamental duties. The silence of public servants to the questions asked or vague answers , ruses by public servants amounts to confessions , agreeing to the questions , charges leveled & crimes committed .Let the TRUTH prevail. Jai hind. Vande mataram.Your's sincerely,Nagaraj.M.R.Judiciary under RTI Act, says parliamentary panelNew Delhi, April 29A parliamentary committee today held that judiciary comes under the purview of the Right to Information law with regard to all activities of administration except "judicial decision making." "Except the judicial decision making, all other activities of administration and the persons included in it (judiciary) are subject to RTI Act," said the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Law and Justice.The opinion of the committee headed by E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappanan comes against the backdrop of a raging controversy over whether the judiciary comes under the RTI purview. Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan had recently said the CJI is a constitutional authority and does not come within the purview of the RTI Act.The committee, which went into the demands of grants for the personnel ministry and discussed the interpretation of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, that is, definition of public authority, said the provision is very clear that all constitutional authorities come under the definition of public authority. The committee had examined in detail every clause of the RTI Act, 2004 and was conscious of the fact that all wings of the state, executive, legislature and judiciary, are fully covered under this Act since all organs of the state are accountable to the citizens of India in a democratic state. "It is more so since the judiciary is having a dual role as (i) administrative function and (ii) judicial decision making. AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER , NEW DELHI & STATE INFOR MATION COMMISSIONER , BANGALORE.We at e-voice of human rights watch has requested for following information ( ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ) from honourable CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA , SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , NEW DELHI , UNION HOME SECRETARY , GOI , NEW DELHI , DG&IG OF POLICE , GOK , BANGALORE , COMMISSIONER , BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE & COMMISSIONER , MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , MYSORE , as per RTI Act . All of them have failed to provide complete truthful information to us. Full Case details are given at following web page,RTI APPEAL TO HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA , SUPREME COURT OF INDIAhttp://crosscji.blogspot.com/ , http://crossexamofchiefjustice.blogspot.com/ ,http://crimesofsupremecourt.wordpress.com/ , http://crosscji.wordpress.com/ ,http://crossexamofchiefjustice.wordpress.com/ ,RTI APPEAL TO UNION HOME SECRETARY , GOI , NEW DELHIhttp://crosscji.blogspot.com/ , http://crossexamofchiefjustice.blogspot.com/ ,http://crimesofsupremecourt.wordpress.com/ , http://crosscji.wordpress.com/ ,http://crossexamofchiefjustice.wordpress.com/ ,RTI APPEAL TO DG&IG OF POLICE , GOK , BANGALOREhttp://crosscji.blogspot.com/ , http://crossexamofchiefjustice.blogspot.com/ ,http://crimesofsupremecourt.wordpress.com/ , http://crosscji.wordpress.com/ ,http://crossexamofchiefjustice.wordpress.com/ ,RTI APPEAL BDA COMMISSIONER , MUDA , MYSOREhttp://crimesofmuda.blogspot.com/ , http://manivannanmuda.blogspot.com/ ,http://crimesatmudamysore.wordpress.com/ ,RTI APPEAL TO BDA COMMISSIONER , BDA , BANGALOREhttp://crimesofbda.blogspot.com/ , http://bdacrimes.wordpress.com/ ,Hereby , we do once again request you to order the said public servants - to comply with RTI Act & to provide the full information to us at the earliest. JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.Your's sincerely,Nagaraj.M.R.INDIAN JUDICIAL & LEGAL SYSTEM INDIRECTLY IN THE CLUTCHES OF MAFIAIn India , justice , equality & democracy an illusion . all those words are only there is in statuette books , but not in practice . the rich & mighty crooks are committing gravest crimes & escaping from the hands of law by manipulating evidences , by bribing the public servants to create favourable government reports , records. Poorpeople who have suffered injustices are not getting justice due to lack of evidences & government reports , records to prove their case.CORRUPTION IS THERE RIGHT FROM GOVERNMENT MATERNITY HOSPITAL UPTOGRAVEYARD , THROUGHT THE WALK OF ONE'S LIFE.The corrupt public servants are more cruel , damaging criminals than our previous british oppressors or dawood ibrahim & other under world dons. The gravest threat , damages to india's security & national integrity is more from these corrupt public servants than Pakistan or china or other terrorist outfits. These corrupt public servants can stoop to any level in their greed for money. The present state affairs is a shame to our political & legal system and a barometer , indicator to their efficiency.Recently , we have seen in the media , how people of bihar meated out mob justice to a criminal , that will be the fate of corrupt police , doctors , other officials in the future. But the violence is not the answer , that will only lead towards anarchy. We must establish true democracy of bapuji's dreams , true freedom , equality for all in practice for which so many of our fore fathers , freedom fighters sacrificed their life for. THE ANSWER LIES IN ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS , ALL CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONARIES INCLUDING JUDGES , TO THEIR PAY MASTERS - MONARCHS OF DEMOCRACY ie CITIZENS OF DEMOCRATIC INDIA. Hope this will dawn on our public servants that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS NOT PUBLIC MASTERS.Failure of RTI Act in India- In the clutches of corrupt public servants mafiaIn the courts of law , every statement to be valid must be supported by evidences. That too, the statements of public servants / government officials & their reports in government records are considered as sacrosanct , the ultimate gospel truth by courts of law.The corruption has spread it's tentacles far & wide in the public service. The bribe booty is shared by lower to higher officials. If an official is complained against , his higher official conducts a formal investigation & reports in the record that lower official is not guilty.The vigilance authorities / Karnataka lokayukta has recently raided on police , tax officials & seized illegal wealth amounting to crores of rupees. Take the recent case where in senior IPS officer , superintendent of police chamarajanagar , mr.srikantappa was arrested by Karnataka lokayukta. The victims spoke to media that he used to threaten them with false cases. In this way , how many victims / innocents were arrested & tortured by his arrest warrants ? how many innocents suffered in false cases ? how many rich criminals got scot free , by srikantappa's filing of B reports leading to closure of cases ?In the past how many suffered by srikantappa's actions ? has the court subjected to review all the previous actions of srikantappa throught his corrupt career ? if not , why ?The courts of law has taken the official reports , records of mr.srikantappa as gospel truth & indirectly aided rich criminals & harmed innocents. It is the same case with respect to reports of all government officials � police , labour , tax , etc. the rich criminals buy out government officials & make them write favourable report about themselves. Whereas the poor , innocents suffer from adverse reports & injustices. The courts of law takes the government records at it's face value & meat out injustices to the poor , innocents while aiding the rich criminals.When a commoner requests for information as per RTI Act , the government officials either give incomplete information , false information or decline to give information under one pretext or the other. The officials are damn sure that the truthful information will be detrimental to themselves & will be taken as evidence against themselves in the courts of law. So information , truth is not given. Even information commissions are failing here. Thereby, the public are denied to seek justice in the courts of law , by lack of evidences.The courts of law before accepting the records of government officials , must subject it to a "test of truth". When a government report is contested against , a fact finding team comprising members of public , complainant , respondent & the court , must check it out at the ground level. Orelse when a complainant says that the report of a government official � police , labour , tax , etc as false that government official must be subjected to lie detector test , narco-analysis, ertc by court of law. The questionnaire ie the questions to be asked during the scientific test are to be prepared with feedback from both complainant & respondent's side. In that way , impartially truth can be found out. After all , the objective of courts of law is "Quest for Truth", not just giving out judgements based on reports of corrupt officials.Nowadays , we are even seeing reports of corruption among the judiciary itself. If a complaint against a judge is made out that a level ground is not provided to put up one's case in the court or cross examination of one party is not allowed or lie detector test / narco analysis of one party is not allowed ( in turn taking the lies of that party as truth ), the judge making a varied interpretation of law, the judge not safe guarding the health & life of the complainant in the custody of police leading to 3rd degree torture of complainant by police , etc, in all such cases the supreme court of India must change the presiding judge of such cases , the cases must be thoroughly reviewed & the guilty judge must be subjected to narco-analysis , lie detector test , etc & legally prosecuted. In this back drop , accountability of police & judges to the public ie citizens of India � kings of democracy , is a must. After all , the kings of democracy / citizens of India / taxpayers are the paymasters of all public servants.We at e � voice of human rights of watch have utmost respect for the judiciary & all government institutions. It is the corrupt few in those institutions who are themselves bringing disgrace to the august institutions they occupy , by their corrupt deeds. The saving grace is that still honest few are left in public service & it is an appeal to them , to legally prosecute their corrupt colleagues.In India , the private enterprises are the wealth creators of our economy. However , some private enterprises are violating labour laws , tax laws , human rights & fundamental rights of people. In turn harming the public , looting the tax dues. This is creating black money causing various social evils in the society. These huge private enterprises take loans from public sector banks ie take public's money as loans , collect money from public in the form of shares , debentures , sell their product to the public. Still , they are not covered by RTI Act, they don't give truthful information to the public nor allow public inspection of their sites , why ? they buy out concerned government officials & gets them to write favourable report about themselves. There are wide differences between the ground reality & these government reports. If the aggrieved person , victim of injustices meated out by these private enterprises , tries to legally seek justice, these criminal private enterprises buy out police , concerned officials & fixes up the victim in false cases. The police in total disregard to law violates the human rights & fundamental rights of the victim in custody , subjects the victim to 3rd degree torture in custody. The presiding judge of the case doesn't safe guard the rights , health , life of victims in custody. The judge doesn't check out the truthfulness of government reports & passes on judgement making varied interpretation of just remember the case of "local citizens vs coca cola company" in plachimada , kerala. Is it not right & just in such cases , to subject the presiding judge , police , concerned government officialds & most importantly key officials of that criminal private enterprise to lie detector , narco- analysis tests , to know the truth ? is it not right to conduct the inspection of alleged site , review of all company's records , by a team comprising of members from public , court , complainant & respondent ? Some of these criminal enterprises threaten to finish off the poor victims . as these company's have money power they can buy out rowdies , police & capable of doing anything. In such cases , if anything untoward happens to the victim or his family , are not the officials of such criminal enterprise liable to pay compensation to the victims's family or survivors ?In India , do we truly have democracy & freedom ? is this corrupt India � what our freedom fighters dreamt of & fought for ?History of Corruption in Indian Judiciary since Independence: 1947 - 2003 1949: Mr. Justice Sinha only Judge impeached; courtesy Good Judges & Constitution Framers: Our Fore-Fathers represented by Constituent Assembly of India framers of Constitution of India then in 1949 (year before Consitution came into existence) impeached Mr. Justice Sinha; finding him "guilty of improper exercise of Judicial functions, the cumulative effect of which was to lower the dignity of his office and undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice…" [008.07]. Such/ similar acts/ behaviours by whom-so-ever including Judges is since 1971 is covered as an act of Criminal Contempt of Court [041.05 ]. Not a single Judge is either Impeached or hauled-up for Contempt till 1991.Peoples' Inner Hope Courts to maintain their Majesty & Dignity will prosecute 1000 Judges in context, who have tarnished & undermined the Fair image of Judiciary.Let Judges relish Jail for months if not years ; to asses personally the convinences-N-comforts provided even to innocent citizens or persons who were not having Rs. 100 to give as Bail. Then they will be in better position to Transform Jails into Reformation Centres. Jailing corrupt Judges by Judges , we hope will instill confidence of people in Courts & law. Who-is-who of India then only will scare to get into any scam nor Criminals will think of becoming Legislators.1979 : Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami ; Chief Justice of India permitted Central Bureau of India to file case of Dis-proportionate of Income / wealth against Chief Justice Madras High Court Mr. K. Veeraswami ( father-in-law of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ). 30 years elaped. Sheltered by Courts' easy-go-tactic. [049.04] [059.05 ] 1991-93: Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ( son-in-law of Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami [049.04 ] ) : SAWANT COMMITTEE REPORT had held he is guilty of several charges. Supreme Court of India also upheld guilty of 3-4 charges ; & recommended to Parliament for further action. Parliamentarians failed in their Duty to Impeach the Sitting Judge of Supreme Court Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ; not rising to the Heights of Eminent Constitution makers ; but chose to have unholy alliance with Corruption in Judiciary vis-a-vis Legislature & Government.[008.00 ]. Supreme Court which upheld Charges of Mis-Behaviour also , we opine , failed to prosecute him under Contempt of Court Act & relevant Laws . It also failed " To Do Complete Justice" by invoking Article142 . Criminal Judge was allowed to go scot-free; both by Parliament & Supreme Court ! Good precedent for other Judges ? If so What kind of message to we-innocent-Citizens ? For almost complete proceedings in SC & Parliament: [008.00 ] 1995 A.M. BHATTACHARJEE: The chief justice of the Bombay High Court was forced to resign in 1995 after it was found that he had received Rs.70 lakh as book advance from a publishing firm known to have links with the underworld. 1996 AJIT SENGUPTA: The Calcutta High Court judge made it a routine to issue ex parte, ad interim stay orders on anticipatory bail pleas from smugglers having links with the Mumbai underworld. He was arrested in 1996 for FERA violations after retirement1994 to 1997: A.M. AHMADI: When he was Chief Justice of India (October 1994-March 1997), his daughter, a lawyer in the Delhi High Court, caused eyebrows to be raised for getting "special" treatment from certain judges. When some members of the bar sought a resolution banning lawyer relatives of judges from staying in the same house, the CJI got members to defeat the motion. 2000 A.S. ANAND: As Chief Justice of India. (a) He was accused of using his position to get the subordinate judiciary to rule in favour of his wife and mother-in-law in a suit that had been barred by limitation for two decades.For more: [049.05] [049.05A] [049.05B] [049.05C] [049.05D] [049.05E ] called as TANGLED PLOT. Also read Ram Jethmalani's " BIG EGOS, small men ". (b) Supreme Court , while he was CJI,directed a CBI probe after a dispute arose over his age in 2000. The investigation report was not made public.This arose due to scan copy published in Ram Jethmalani's " BIG EGOS, small men ". 2002: SEX FOR ACQUITTAL In November 2002, Sunita Malviya, a Jodhpur-based doctor, alleged that a deputy registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had sought sexual favours for himself and for Justice Arun Madan to "fix" a case in her favour. Justice Mr.• Arun Madan . Case of Lady Sunita Malviya.STATUS: A committee set up by former CJI G.B. Pattanaik found prima facie evidence against Madan, who does not attend court anymore. Judge ResignedCASH-FOR-JOB :Three judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought the help of disgraced PPSC chief R.P. Sidhu to ensure that their daughters and other kin topped examinations conducted by the commission . Judges are M.L. Singh , Mehtab Sing Gill & Amarbir SinghSTATUS: Two inquiry panels indicted the judges. Gill and Amarbir Singh have resigned M.L. Singh continues, though no work is allotted to him. 2002-03: 3 Judges Mysore Sex Scandal ( alleged ) : On Sunday, November 3, 2002, three judges of the Karnataka High Court, along with two women advocates, allegedly got involved in a brawl with a woman guest at a resort. The police arrived but reportedly didn't take action. Judges are N.S. Veerabhadraiah , V. Gopalagowda &• Chandrashekaraiah .STATUS: The three-judge inquiry committee appointed by the CJI filed its report. Gave clean chit.March 2003 - Delhi High Court Judge resigns: Suspected of collusion with Property Developers. Raids by CBI on corrupt higher officials in Delhi Development Authority (DDA), found Draft Judgement-N-Court Records ________________________________________E(I)nquiry-in-camera or In-House Inquiry was & is contrary to Law . Is ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution of India: " The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India"Following Questions / Issues, inter alia , arise( a ) Enquiry in-camera was held contrary to the observations made by, Constituent Assembly of India in 1949. In its' Impeachment Order had held thus:"While we are alive to the desirability, in the interests of the public, of investigating charges against a Judge in open court, we held the Enquiry in-camera in view of the allegation made in the affidavits and the circumstances of the case. This mode of proceeding should not, however, be regarded as a precedent." [008.07 ].( b) In the case of similar In-House Inquiry held under the Orders of Chief Justice of India in Jusice V. Ramaswami's case , Justice Ramaswami had held that " Inquiring Committee" as well as " Inquiry" have no basis & force of law. It is reflected in the Report , which was read-out by CJI to Advocates & publicised , submitted by 3 Judges Committee thus" Indeed Justice Ramaswami had made it clear to the Chief Justice that he did not recognise any such Jurisdiction in any body or authority." (c) It will not be out-of place to mention here that Two of "Three Judges Committee " appointed by CJI in Re. V. Ramaswami's case are alleged to be involved in Judges Plot 4 Plot.[014.00]. It is like Criminal investigating another criminal . ( d ) If so how sure can we be that " 3 Judges Committee " appointed to invetigate " 3 Judges Mysore Sex Scandal " were un-biased or were above Board & have presented an accurate Report ? Queries to Supreme Court , Parliament of India & Central Government In Re. Judges' Mysore Sex Scandal ( a)" Will the Supreme Court Publicise Report of " 3 Judges Committee " ( all & sundry material); morefully to know whether any evidence adduced by many in support of Scam is informed to CJI & Supreme Court ? (b) What is the Guarantee that despite prima facie evidence Judges of Supreme Court which consists of Few corrupt Judges seved in Karnataka are not inclined to take stern action ? (c) Investigation of a Crime comitted by Minister or anyone lies within Executive Domain like the case Justice K.Veeraswami, in this case CBI . Is it not a case of hushing-up & messing-up of " 3 Pillars of Constitution " ?. (d) How long will you try keeping suppressed Crimes of Judges of Supreme Court & High Courts when Union Law Minister Mr. P. Shiva Shankar , on 28th Nov.1987 said " Supreme Court is filled with FERA violators & Bride Burners…" ( AIR 1988 SC 1208 ). When Chief Justice Of India Justice E.S. Venkataramaiaha admits that "in every High Court there are 3-4 Judges who are out every evening to Party in Foreign Embassiies or at Advocates' places…drink…dine…" (1990 Cr LJ 2179 ) [041.09]. (e) 20% of Judges are corrupt , indirectly said Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha , in other words admitted that 80% of Judges of India are not corrupt & are above board to be bribed or influnced ? Then why cases are not filed against 20% of Judges ? ________________________________________LOSS of Confidence in Judiciary : The Actions & Inactions of Supreme Court trying to suppress crimes of Judges has resulted in We, the People of India losing confidence in Courts & given rise to a Question whether at all People of India's Fundamental & Statutory Rights are safe in present set of Judges & Courts and Laws Governing thereof ?Conscience of Judiciary Shaken: Supreme Court of India: "Police Raj" it said when Judges all over India went on a kind of strike; for the reason that a District Judge in liquor prohibited Gujarat State in 1991; drunk & misbehaved , police acted as per law or so. Conscience of Judiciary was shaken the Court claims. What was it to do with Judges all over India? Have they ganged-up as One to help each other & continue crimes but still go unpunished? Punish Dutiful Police?"Police Raj" to "Judges Tyranny": Judges serving all over India have formed an Assocition called " All India Judges Association ". At the time when One Party System in Parliament managed by Congress was to give way to Multi-Party System (1989 & 1991 General Elections); Supreme Court gave Judgments in 1992 & 1993 upholding that Judges of subordinate courts of India are not Employees. They are like Ministers / M.L.A.s but not on par of Civil Servants [037.02][037.02A ]. Inter alia Court said Central Govt. should set-up " All India Judicial Services " & " National Judicial Pay Commission ". Supreme Court continuously monitored to see that Pay Commission (FNJPC) is constituted but failed to monitor setting-up of All India Judicial Services [055.02 ]. What Judges want is more Liberty / Perks / Powers but no liabilities / Duties. Un-bridled they want to be as Judges of Supreme Court & High Court. FNJPC was also given power to give Interim Relief to Judges. Non setting-up of National Judicial Academy [008.15 ] & All India Judicial Services is nothing but Fraud on Constitution & Supreme Court Criminal Politicians Vs Criminal Judges : Hats off for the Judgment of Supreme Court striking-down of Parliamentary Act amending Representatives of Peoples Act. Court said Come Clean Mr. Politicians in relation to diclosure of their Criminal , Financial & other such antecedents so as to help electorate of India to decide whether to vote for good or bad person in elections. But this 50 years belated Judgment came as Bolt from Blue to politicians. In this perod Aliens, Anti-nationals, Criminals & all sundries had a field Day.But then What about Criminal / Corrupt / Judgment-for-Sex Judges ?: The Supreme Court was unanimous in the Judgment of corrupt politicians. Parliament is not unanimous to Bridle Judges or judiciary. Nor is the Supreme Court ready to find ways & means to Tame / Terminate / Jail the Corrupt / criminal / Judgment-for-Sex Judges. Such inactions of Supreme Court or High Court is nothing short of giving leverage to such of them. It looks as though Supreme Court on its own is eroding faith of Public in Judiciary as a whole. Like Termites these Judges are Constitutional-Enemies-Within-India who are bent upon to disseminate corruption among other Good Judges.India: Time to end the lethal lottery of India's death penalty system(New Delhi): The first major study into India's legal judgements on death penalty cases has revealed that the system is riddled with fatal flaws and that the only remedy is to abolish the death penalty completely, said the study authors in New Delhi today.Amnesty International believes that at least 140 people have been sentenced to death in 2006 and 2007. According to the latest available official figures, there were 273 persons on death row as of 31 December 2005. But this figure is likely to be considerably higher today.The fate of these death row prisoners is ultimately a lottery. In the first comprehensive analysis of around 700 Supreme Court judgements on death penalty cases over more than 50 years, the authors expose a judicial system that has failed to meet international laws and standards relating to the death penalty.Amnesty International India and the People's Union for Civil Liberties (Tamil Nadu & Puducherry) have issued the study, Lethal Lottery: The Death Penalty in India, A study of Supreme Court judgments in death penalty cases 1950-2006. It is the first to examine the essential unfairness of the death penalty system in India by analysing evidence found in Supreme Court judgments of abuse of law and procedure and of arbitrariness and inconsistency in the investigation, trial, sentencing and appeal stages in capital cases. It demonstrates that:• the administration of the death penalty in India has not been in the "rarest of rare cases" as claimed in the country • on the contrary, there is ample evidence to show that the death penalty has been an arbitrary, imprecise and abusive means of dealing with defendants.Dr V Suresh, President, PUCL (TN & Puducherry) said: "While the death penalty continues to be used in India, there remains a danger that it will be used disproportionately against ethnic minorities, the poor or other disadvantaged groups. There is only one way to ensure such inequalities in the administration of justice do not occur: the complete abolition of the death penalty." Amnesty International welcomes the current hiatus of executions in the country. The relative lack of executions in the last decade -- one in 2004 -- illustrates that the people of India are willing to live without the death penalty. "India stands at a crossroads. It can choose to join the global trend towards a moratorium on the death penalty, as adopted by the UN General Assembly last year. It will also then join 27 countries in the Asia Pacific region which have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice."Or it can continue to hang death row inmates, when the judicial system that puts them there has been shown by this extensive research to be unfair," said Mukul Sharma, Amnesty International-India Director.The full report is available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/ASA20/007/2008 and a summary, at http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/ASA20/006/2008 Background:The study of the courts highlights some of the main failings as:• Errors in consideration of evidence - most death sentences handed down in India are based on circumstantial evidence alone. In a 1994 Supreme Court appeal, the Court noted sarcastically that the main witness's memory constantly improved. His testimony at the trial three years after the incident was observed to be far more detailed than his confessional statement recorded a few days after.• Inadequate legal representation - concerns included lawyers ignoring key facts of mental incompetence, omitting to provide any arguments on sentencing, or failing to dispute claims that the accused was under 18 years of age at the time of the crime despite evidence to the contrary.• Anti-terrorist legislation - concerns include the broad definition of `terrorist acts', insufficient safeguards on arrest, and provisions allowing for confessions made to police to be admissible as evidence.• Arbitrariness in sentencing - in the same month, different benches of the Supreme Court have treated similar cases differently, with mitigating factors taken into account or disregarded arbitrarily.• In the Bachan Singh judgment of 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should be used only in the "rarest of rare" cases. More than a quarter of a century later, it is clear that through the failure of the courts and the State authorities to apply consistently the procedures laid down by law and by that judgment, the Court's strictures remain unfulfilled.A total of 135 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, having realised executions are unacceptable. In 2007, only 24 countries carried out executions (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the USA were the main five perpetrators, accounting for 88 per cent of all known executions). See http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penaltyJudicial nepotism rampant in IndiaApril 12, 2007 by CyberGandhi In the first step in the fight against judicial nepotism, the Law Ministry wrote to the Bar Council of India last month asking it to ensure that lawyers don't appear in cases before judges who are close relatives. However, it appears to have ignored the wider problem of what is called Son Stroke or Uncle Judge, where judges have close relatives practising in the same court.NDTV discovered that this trend, where two judges or a group of judges have children practising in each other's courts, is widespread. While not everyone takes advantage of what has been described as a mutual cooperative society, many of them do. This problem first surfaced in 2003, when the Bar Council of India demanded the transfer of all judges whose relatives practised in the same courts.A year later, BK Roy, then Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, issued an administrative order barring a group of 10-12 judges from hearing any case pleaded by each other's relatives.He quoted eminent jurist HM Seervai: "Experience shows that an impression is created in the public, however unjustified it may be, that it would be advantageous to engage a judge's son as an advocate.""It was generally believed that A, B, C and D (all judges) constituted a mutual co-operative society, in the sense was believed that each of the four judges (A, B, C and D) would protect the sons of the three other judges."The order sparked off a protest by judges in Punjab who took mass leave. Justice BK Roy was subsequently transferred, and since then, the order has been ignored."Some relatives misuse their connections more blatantly than others, but the problem remains in principle. An especially acute feature of problem of nepotism as it exists here is that apart from relatives of high court judges, children of sitting Supreme Court judges from this region also practise here at Chandigarh.""The advantages, the benefits that accrue to them from their connections is well known to all and is fully exploited," said Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court.Recently an MP raised the issue of judicial nepotism again and claimed that out of 490 judges of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, relatives of 131 judges are practising in the same court.Limited directiveFinally, four long years after the issue was first raised by the Bar Council, the Law Ministry issued a directive. But it was confined to saying that no lawyer shall plead a case before a judge who is a close relative.It completely skirts the issue of close relatives of a judge practising in the same court - the Uncle Judge or Son Stroke syndrome."There are complaints from all over the country that judges' children are practising in the same high court and that is causing grave problem in regard to handling of cases and the judges favouring and one judges son appearing before another judge," said M N Krishnamany, President, SC Bar Association.Judges are, in fact, expected to follow a code of conduct which points out that: "Close association with individual members of the Bar, particularly with those who practise in the same court, shall be eschewed."But is this distance really possible?"If your son, brother or sister is practising in the same court, you can't eschew close association with your son, daughter or brother.""Therefore, you should not be a judge in the same court; you should opt to be transferred to some other court where a close relative is not practising," said Prashant Bhushan, Member, Committee on Judicial Accountability.However, as figures show, this is clearly not the trend.In the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the relatives of eight sitting judges plead cases, while in Delhi High Court, the close relatives of nine sitting judges are practising lawyers.Also senior lawyers feel that the children of judges are often favoured."That instances have come that a relation of a judge having joined only three four years in the practise suddenly his briefs are huge in number so that is what it is under scrutiny because he takes advantage of his position," said Jaganath Patnaik, President, Bar Council of India."It is very clear also as I know personally so many judges in the High Courts their children are practising and are being pampered also," said M N Krishnamani, President, SC Bar Association.The public impression is that in order to get a favourable order, it's better to hire a close relative of a judge to plead your case.Now the questions that remain to be answered are can the Bar Councils keep a check on this practise and is the Law Ministry seriously concerned about ending nepotism?Ajmer Singh, Wednesday, April 11, 2007 (New Delhi), NDTV.COM
var irr_lang = 'en';
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJ.M.R. @ #LIG-2 / 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE - 570017 INDIA … cell :09341820313home page : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw, http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper/,http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com/ , http://indiapolicelaw.blogspot.com/ , http://hrwpaper.blogspot.com/ , http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ ,http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com,contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com A member of AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA
Posted by e-Voice Of Human Rights Watch at 4:55 AM
Labels: INDIA, judges
5 comments:
Yogesh Saxena said...
MISUTILIZATION OF SOVEREIGN AUTHORITYMy sad Experience during Journey with a High Court Judge (Retd.) Transgression of the discretion in misutilization of sovereign authority has perpetuated the erosion of very foundation, on which the sovereign power was assigned to a judicial officer.The aforesaid observation is having a predominating character in order to protect the dignity of the judiciary as respect is never commanded rather it may act like a command in the conscience of the people.Justice Shambhu Nath Srivastava( Now Retd.) is known controversial judge having criticism spread in every news paper for generating communal hatred with Muslim and on the other hand in the light of power assigned upon the judge of the Allahabad High Court, these judgement are beyond the pleading of issues raised and thereby these judgement are attributed even by the Ex-Chief Justice of India Justice V.N. Khare as one of the blot in the history of judicial institution. The people at large are govern by their sentiment and there is no literacy amongst the people as to appreciate the separation of the three power in a democratic setup people having the Hindu sentiment have regarded these judgement as the exposure of past history and the atrocities committed upon Hindu inhibition from the time of the attract by Muslims in 712 AD upto our independency as the revolution of the truth through the judicial verdict.Thus natural affiliation develop amongst different sect of the people by reading the judgment on the issue of Madarsa, minority institution and the protection granted to the Muslim under the garb of their so called status of the minority, the other judgement declaring Geeta as a national epic required to be followed by every individual living in our country and the status of the deity having an endowment their upon as juristic person has been declared in deciding the Second appeal where only substantial questions formulated generated through pleading and evidence could have been decided in the normal circumstance. Thus the element of the jurisdictional scope of interference has been eroded by Justice S.N. Srivastava in all three judgments, which were delivered just at the verge of retirement by Justice S.N. Srivastava.I was not aware that justice Srivastava has obtained the four security guard from the Govt. of U.P. on the recommendation of the High Court as he convey his apprehension for the threat of life in view of some mysterious letter received by him from the Muslim organization. Unfortunately on the repeated insistent of Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh now practicing at Allahabad High Court and the brief holder in the criminal side, I went at the residence of the Justice Srivastava and enquire as whether he may inaugurate the opening session of the Public School and unveil two deities at Kasba Bewar District Mainpuri. Justice Srivastava demanded not only convenience of vehicle for carrying him upto Bewar, but also asked to arrange vehicle for taking him to Nainital. He said it to Shailendra Kumar Singh on 25.6.2008 at his residence, only then he may attend the function scheduled on 29th June,2008. I persistently reminded to Justice Srivastava and also to my colleague Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh not to drag me in any controversial situation, in case both of you are not able to fulfill the respective commitment in this regard. I said so that I may attend my professional duty for conducting my argument in the cases fresh/unlisted/listed on 30.6.2008, which co-incidentally was happened to be opening day after the summer vacation of Allahabad High Court.My experience indulging into argument on the point raised by Justice Srivastava has always been depreciated in respect of his super domination egoistic trend and a sort of authentic attitude of the judge, to which every Advocate dislike, but still I felt indebted regarding his contribution to society in respect of exposure of truth, which has vanish in judicial proceedings within duration of 15 years completing from the premises of judicial institution at Allahabad High Court. Any way what I apprehended initially that I may not be trapped in my benevolent indulgence, became a truth. He has misused his official position to get the protocol of the sitting Judge by intimating the information to District Judge, Mainpuri and thereafter to avail the facility available to the inspecting Judge by getting the accommodation at circuit House Mainpuri on the expenditure of Govt. He got the security from the Mobile Van , who have started escorting him from his entrance time within the territorial jurisdiction of entire district Mainpuri. What he conveyed to Mr. Chaudhary Add. C.J.M. Mainpuri that he is sensing a conspiracy in bringing him to inaugurate the private function and as such deployed the Police force for escorting me through police personnel and the Police force. This has been done as a puncture has been there at Gursahaiganj. Where the Muslim population is in excess to the rest of the area of District Kannauj. I am strictly against mystification of the power through such Hippocratic manner, where the Judicial officers are instigated indulge in nepotism and corruption by the inspecting Judge, but they award good entry to corrupt officials, in spite their impropriator attitude towards the public. Now a Retd. Judge Justice S.N. Srivastava , to whom I provided my indulgence of taking him for inauguration of the Public School and to unveil the deity, has started doing it by bluffing the administration and I may listen his absurdity about the integrity of the Ex. Chief Justice of India as being appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. Thus I disassociated my self from taking further participation in any one of Impropriator, as my conscience pricks as an Advocate of Allahabad High Court to remain associate in the activity, which is the mystification of the power by the Judicial authority, who ad horns the solemn chair of solidarity. Advocacy is not a Business- a Trade, nor a spokesman ship of the scoundrel in the Society, but a call of the learned person against injustice. I precluded myself from associating with Justice S. N. Srivastava from 28th June 2008th evening itself and did not stayed in the Govt. accommodation, but stayed with my nephew as I have been brought up in an honest atmosphere. Conquest of India says nothing about superiority of the Invaders, but it remain over weakness of characteristics, by virtue of it our country became slave Nation from its very inception of 712 A.D. onwards. Rampant corruption is ascending in disproportionate extends, and so for its galloping race could not be halted, even though thousands of acts and Ordinances have been promulgated after the dawn of independence. Now our character is eroding on basis of which our foundation of judicial institution have started shaking the integrity to get the collapse of the third pillar of Democratic System.
7/06/2008 6:23 AM
Yogesh Saxena said...
Our Last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham- ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. WHERE ARE THOSE JUDGES?‘This reminiscences is relate back to the period of about last 50 years from the time of last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham, Those were the days’-. Compare it now; Right from the period of the English judges to the present scenario. It has been said that those judges were mature, modest and commanded the respect by their very entry in the courtroom. ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. Chief justice Mootham entered the court smilingly, but became tense and pointed out to the Bench Secretary for the impropriety of behavior of a litigant, a gentle man who was sitting in the fifth or sixth row wearing a head-gear. The gentleman has removed his cap. The moment the functioning started, the chief justice regained his usual pleased posture, but the irritation was again visible, when he saw the gentleman recapped his head. However, when the orderly went towards the gentleman he voluntarily removed his cap. This was perhaps by reflexes that he wore the cap once again. The chief justice stopped functioning and asked the court officer to act upon and thereafter the gentleman was asked to leave the courtroom. It was per by chance that one contemporary Advocate went to chief justice’s chamber to make a mention. Justice Gyanendra Kumar was present in Hon’ble Chief justice chamber. The chief justice in a most inimitable style asked, whether he had seen the gentleman, who despite been told not to wear the cap, defied the advice of the bench secretary. The Chief Justice has also said that the gentleman looked a dissent person, but he wandered why he repeatedly wore his cap soon after removing it. Was it by the defiance to authority of the Court? Justice Gyanendra Kumar, a very pleasant conversationalist, intervened. He said "Chief Justice", your lordship in the English society, people take off a hat to show courtesy, but we in this country wear a cap to show our respect. Thus the gentleman was only trying to repeat his gesture of respect. The chief justice perhaps never knew it otherwise this was not causing irritation to him. The tall person, the chief justice broke into laugher and asked the bench secretary to trace and bring the gentleman in his chamber. Perhaps the gentleman was still out side the chief justice chamber. As soon as he entered, the chief justice expressed regret to him and pleaded his ignorance that the cap is worn to show respect. Soon, the gentleman after being happy from the reprimand made by the chief justice was again called to request him to be in the courtroom soon after the lunch. Justice Gyanendra Kumar was curious as to why the chief justice was insisting to have the gentleman in court. On being inquired the chief justice Mootham observed:- " He has been reprimanded in court by me and therefore he deserves an apology from chief justice in the court itself. Later the chief justice apologized in court itself. This has been never seen or heard by any judge about such gesture even to a lawyer when there is no good ground for reprimand." HOW CAN SUCH A JUDGE, THOUGH HE RETIRED IN 1961 CAN GO OUT OF MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN HIM WORKING IN COURT AND OUTSIDE”? There gesture of kindness to the lawyers and courteous dialogues used to blush out of their modesty even if their faces looked red and they were scared in the moment. They entered the courtroom right at 10.00 A.M. never before or a second afterwards. The chief justice was so cordial, warm and affectionate that this was the etiquette of high constitutional functionaries. The unusual dissent conduct with a strange warmth decency of Chief Justice Mootham was continued to remember even after his death to heavenly abode from this world."Every Act and every inquiry and similarly every action and pursuit, given by him was thought to aim at some good, and for this reason, the good has rightly been declared, to be that, at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends". For him "For best was he who knows all things himself good, he that hearkens when men counsel right. But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart another wisdom, is a useless night"."Life is a shylock; always it demands. The fullest usurer’s interests for each pleasure Gifts are not freely scattered by its hand. We made returns for every borrowed treasurer. Each talent, each achievement and every gain me necessitated some penalty to pay. All you bestow on causes or on men of love or hate of malice or devotion somehow and sometime shall be returned again. There is no waste toil, no lost emotion. The motto of the world is to give and take. It gives you favour out of sheer goodwill but unless a speedy recompense you make you will find yourself presented with its bill". "Competition is a struggle for existence because there is always be survival of the fittest". Justice Raghubar Dayal, an Advocate has written this that he open his submissions by using a phrase from the privy council’s judgement without referring to it. He said that the learned District Judge has carved out an new case for which no place was found in pleading! Justice Raghubar Dayal did not open the file and remarked - if counsel have learned to use this kind of language so early in life, he would land himself in disaster. Advocate immediately apologized. He said that he has escaped his lordship wrath and will have a chance before another judge, but justice Dayal said to him that he might present in the courtroom at 10.00 A.M. as this case will be taken as part heard case. Justice Dayal was tensed and his earlier day’s annoyance was apparent. Advocate said that he was relying Privy Council judgement where the judicial committee has used the same language. He said that he was conscious that he did not know English to well, yet he use such word, which were used by Privy Council. Justice Dayal admitted the appeal, but refuse to exercise discretion for staying the decree for demolition. He has written that his indiscreet use of language cause lost to his client. The house of the client was demolished but Advocate has written that he has repented this incident through out his life as to find out where he was wrong. Justice Raghubar Dayal, who retired in 1960 as the judge of Supreme Court, still had the great respect from Advocate, as he never committed such mistake through out his life.With regard to Justice and injustice to an individual’s opinion assessments, we must consider the kind of action. It’s means and the justness for considering its effect and solution. Thus the justice is always represent in corresponding sense. An advocate’s world is to convey the idea generated through such experiences with the same precision Ideologically some time antagonistic to his own opinion, but from its very inception of the correct analysis of his perceptions with the desire, aptitude and knowledge in adequate representations. This is a heterogeneous conglomeration of disparate and desperate interests designed mainly hedge against common enemy on both the constituents. .The cultivation of moral foundations is called our cultural heritage.Yogesh Kumar SaxenaAdvocate, High CourtH.I.G.203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem sarai, Allahabad-211001yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.inFounder President- World Citizenship Group Foundation, Swami vevekanand world ethical foundation,Executive Member- World Parliament Experiment conference 2008 at Bonn (Germany), Vice President- Geeta Asharam International Cheritable Trust, Rishikesh, Pauri GarhwalEx Vice President- Advocate’s Association, High Court, AllahabadSpecial Counsel/ officer, Ganga Pollution Matter, High Court, Allah
7/06/2008 6:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Complaint in respect of functioning of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan in respect of his functioning as Allahabad High Court Judge, Now elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court To,My lord The Chief Justice Of India,Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,New DelhiReference:- The Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta has decided the special appeal No. 1369 of 1999 wholly without Jurisdiction , as the jurisdiction to hear and decide the same on 26.10.2006, the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2 Gupta under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. It is submitted that the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta. There is a complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicataSubject:- Direction may be issued for deciding the matter pertaining to recall of order and judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 passed wholly without Jurisdiction by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta as the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta, when the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34 as the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2The submission of the petitioner Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad in this regards are as under. That the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English in the institution on 9.8.1968. He was confirmed after completion of probation period on 9.8.1969. He was the member of Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh and as such he was detained under the maintenance of Internal Security Act from 14.8.1975 to 30.3.1977. He was again detained under National Security Act (N.S.A.) on 1.11.1980 upto 10.12.1980 and despite the aforesaid preventive detention; the respondents paid the petitioner salary. That third time when on 11.7.1987 the petitioner went to Govt. Inter College, Moradabad to take training under the new education policy, he was detained under the provisions of Internal Security Act. That the petitioner was taking the training alongwith the principal of institution and one Khajan Giri and as such he told the Principal to inform the Manager about his arrest, but still the Manager wrote a letter on 24.7.1987 stating therein that the petitioner did not attend the college and was not present in the institution on 21.7.1987.That on 27.7.1987 the petitioner wrote a letter that he was arrested by the Police at the gate of Govt. Inter College, and had been lodged in district Jail Moradabad from 11.7.1987. This letter was sent through district Jail Moradabad and the same was communicated to the Manager, who sent the aforesaid letter to the D.I.O.S. Moradabad on 31.7.1987.That the members of Bhartiya Janta Party shown its resentment against the illegal detention of the petitioner and the news to this effect was published in Amar Ujala on 16.7.1987. Thus the management knew the fact regarding the absence of petitioner on account of unavoidable circumstances of his illegal detention, but still the allegation of absent from leave was leveled against the petitioner.That Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Senior Lawyer of District Court Moradabad and the Vice-President of Committee of Management of Institution passed resolution on 15.7.1987 seeking bye cot of all the courts Moradabad on account of illegal arrest of petitioner. That still the resolution was passed on 4.9.1987 to give a notice to the petitioner as to why he remained absent from 11.7.1987 and sought for his explanation. The notice was sent to the petitioner in jail on 10.9.1987 stating therein that why his services should not be terminated. The explanation of petitioner regarding his absence being beyond his control as had been detained under the National Security Act and the earlier information sent to the manager on 27.7.1987 was not taken into consideration by the management. That the charges were in respect of previous detention for which the petitioner was paid his salary was also leveled as the first charge, while the second charge was falsely concocted, as the petitioner did not give any information regarding his detention, nor gave any leave application. The petitioner explained every thing in his letter dated 21.1.1988 and said that he is district Jail due to illegal detention and as such the absence of petitioner was beyond his control. The sole reason for the detention of the petitioner was that he was the District Secretary of Bhartiya Janta Party. That the petitioner was suspended, but the suspension order was revoked after 60 days. It is submitted that after being released from the preventive detention on 11.7.1988, the petitioner was directed to put his signature in the office of D.I.O.S. Moradabad, as the Management did not allow the petitioner to resume his duties. The petitioner was paid salary by the D.I.O.S. even after the preventive detention. That despite all such facts the matter was referred to the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad to whom petitioner sent a letter on 24.2.1989 seeking setting aside the proposal of the Committee of Management, but the one member committee who was not even authorized to conduct the enquiry recommended for termination of services of the petitioner and thereafter the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad on 28.7.1989 granted approval to the proposal for termination.That one member committee of O.N. Shah who remained Assistant Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 17.5.1987 and was the Principal of S.S.K. Inter College could not be appointed as one member committee and his recommendation to dispense with the services to the commission were void-ab- initio and as such the subsequent order of termination dated 1.9.1989 on the baseless, misconceived and frivolous charges was liable to be set aside, which was done by the reasoned judgement passed on 11.8.1999 in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989.The said judgement was challenged by the Committee of Management in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999.That after the dismissal of special appeal no. 840 of 1999 when the recall application was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the petitioner, then the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta after going through the contents of the counter affidavit filed in the said application seeking recall of the order dated 23.11.2003, summoned the file of the special appeal no. 860 of 1999 (filed by Sudhir Kumar dismissed on 2.4.2004), the Special Appeal no. 907 of 1999 (filed by U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission dismissed on 14.9.1999) and also the record of pending present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, simply to ascertain the matter in consonance with the requirement as to whether the recall application filed on behalf of the committee of management may be allowed or the same may be dismissed in absence of any rejoinder affidavit to the allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. That the special appeal no. 840 of 1999 was dismissed as not pressed on 23.11.2003 by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, JJ. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the Committee of Management of Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Moradabad challenging the judgement and order dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai J in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 (Prem Shankar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others). Thereafter an application for recall of the order dated 23.11.2003 purported to have been passed in the Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 without annexing the judgement dated 23.11.2004 dismissing the aforesaid Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the Petitioner. That the Petitioner filed the counter affidavit in reply to the affidavit filed in support of the recall application. It was stated that the judgment can not be recalled by moving an application at belated stage and the copy of the same is not given to the counsel appearing on behalf of answering respondent. That it was further stated that the said application is filed without having any explanation regarding non-filing of application seeking condonation of delay. Thus the same is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. That it was further stated that the Special Appeal no. 860 of 1999 filed by Sudhir Kumar against the same judgement dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai, J has been dismissed on 2.4.2004. This person Sudhir Kumar was inducted as the Lecturer in English after dispensing the services of the petitioner. However, when the writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 was allowed on 11.8.1999, then the services of Sudhir Kumar were terminated and as such he filed the Special appeal no. 860 of 1999, which was also dismissed and thereby reaffirming the judgement dated 11.8.1999. That the special appeal no. 907 of 1999 was filed against the same judgement passed on 11.8.1999 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, but that special appeal was also dismissed as misconceived and also being filed without any locus-standi by the judgment dated 14.9.1999. That on 26.10.2006 the jurisdiction to here the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2. It is submitted that the present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta and as such only to ascertain the facts stated in the counter affidavit and in the affidavit filed in support of the alleged recall application, the records of three aforesaid special appeal was summoned, wherein the name of the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/respondent namely Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate was the only name mentioned in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999. That the Standing counsel was not prepared to argue the matter pertaining to the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. in absence of the same not being listed in court no. 34 and in absence of Sri Ashok Khare, senior Counsel appearing in the said appeal on behalf of petitioner. This fact has been brought to the notice of the deponent by his counsel appearing in Special appeal no. 840 of 1999, which was dismissed on 23.11.2004.That the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan enquired about the matter from Sri V.K. Singh Advocate appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 and also enquired from the counsel for the respondent only about the controversy involved in all such special appeal out of which three special appeals were already dismissed while the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by State of U.P. was surviving. The counsel informed that the question as to whether a teacher while detained under Preventive detention could have been said to be voluntarily absenting from duty on the basis of which without affording any opportunity, the services of such teacher may be dispensed with in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and the case law relied upon in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 (state of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rama Shankar Raghuvanshui A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 374), (M.H. Devendrappa Vs. Karnataka State in Small Industries Development Corporation. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1064), Sarnam Singh Vs. Smt Pushpa Devi 1986 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. page 348 and Anukool Chandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2814, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Miss. Bina Pani Dei and others 1967 (2) S.C.R. 625 (Para-9), Mohinder Singh Gill VS. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (2) S.C.R. 272 (Para-9), State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 S.C.R. 284 followed in D.K. Yadav Vs. M/S J.M.A. Industry J.T. 1993 (3) S.C. 617 as well as the provisions of Regulation 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44 and 45 read with section 16 (G) (3-A) as provided under Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and rule 6 of rules framed under Act no. 5 of 1982 referred in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 were indicated as the controversy involved regarding unavoidable incident relating to the arrest under preventive detention, which is not pertaining to any criminal activity, but simply on account of participating into association under Article 19 (1) ( C) of the Constitution of India. The matter was not argued by the standing counsel, but in the judgment allegedly delivered on 26.10.2006, it has been falsely mentioned that the case was argued by the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Appellant. The counsel for the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 840/1999 Sri Yogesh Kumar saxena, Advocate informed the deponent that it was only Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate appearing in Special appeal No. 840/1999, who placed the controversy involved in his special appeal no. 840 of 1999.That on 1.11.2006, when the matter was shown to be listed in the cause list of court no. 34 regarding the delivery of the order in the recall application filed in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 then counsel for the petitioner was informed that since the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. was also liable to be dismissed and as such it has been shown to be decided on 26.10.2006 in the cause list of 1.11.2006. That upto this time i.e. 1.11.2006 there was no existence of the order alleged to have been passed on 26.10.2006 in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on the basis of which the recall application was decided as no order is required to be passed on this application, but subsequently thereafter when the message of dismissal of special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was communicated to the petitioner, then counsel for the petitioner came to know about the existence of the order. He applied for the order in anticipation that the special appeal bearing special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, which was earlier filed as (defective) appeal no. 630 of 1999 might have been dismissed as there may not be the inconsistent order in the said appeal after dismissal of three special appeals filed against the same judgement, in which the committee of Management and Secretary U.P. Secondary Commission remained at the array of respondents and were duly represented by their respective counsels. That, although the order passed on 23.11.2004 dismissing the Special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 has been affirmed by the order dated 26. 10. 2006 passed on Recall application, as it has been noted that in view of the judgement passed in special appeal No. 1369 of 1999, no order is required to pass on the recall application. Thus it appears that even by this order passed on 26.10.2006, the Hon’ble Division Bench dealing with the recall application in special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 did not find any merit in the said appeal. The Hon’ble division bench Presided by Hon’ble Dr. justice B. S. Chauhan adopted a unique manner in deciding the present Special Appeal wholly without jurisdiction purported to have decided on the same day, to which no person could have decided in the open court on 26.10.2006, otherwise their was no occasion for listing of the case on 1.11.2006 in the cause list for appropriate order on the recall application filed in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999. Thus the judgement passed in special Appeal is bad in the light of the legal fiction that what not be done directly in absence of jurisdiction, the can not be done indirectly by the Hon’ble Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta in passing the judgement on 26.10.2006 passed in special Appeal No. 1369 of 1999. That in this manner since the judgement passed in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 by the bench presided over the Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta is the judgment passed in absentia of the counsel of the petitioner/respondent appearing in the said appeal namely Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate for the petitioner in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, which was the only name printed as the sole name of the opposite party; and the same special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was neither listed for hearing under the caption of the jurisdiction, nor there had been any serial number mentioned against the said listing of the special appeal, regarding which, the communication could have been made to the senior counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner by the other counsel appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 at the time of its dismissal on 23.11.2004. There was no jurisdiction conferred with the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta to decide the special appeal of the year of 1999 as the jurisdiction of the same was conferred before court no. 2 under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicata as held in Sarguja Transport Service versus State Transport appellate Tribunal (1987)1 S. C. C. 5.( paragraph 7) That it is submitted that there is the complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter may not be decided by another coordinated Hon’ble Division Bench, except the Hon’ble Division Bench having the jurisdiction conferred to the different benches as per the circulation of cause list circulated to the Hon’ble benches and members of the Bar.That the constitution of the benches as per the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Registrar shall subject to such direction as Hon’ble Chief Justice may give from time to time caused to be prepare a cause list for each day on which the court sits containing the list of cases, which may be heard by different benches of court under Rule 6 of Chapter VI of High Court Rules, 1952.That an application for expediting of hearing of case or for listing a case out of term or for removal of case to be tried and determined by the court under Rule 4 or for withdrawal of a case under Article 228 of the Constitution of India shall be laid before Hon’ble Chief Justice (or any other judge of a bench nominated by Chief Justice in respect of any case or class of cases) for orders. Thus for having an out of term hearing of a case, the application is required to be moved before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.That in this manner, it is crystal clear that if the case is not listed in the cause list after determination of heading for what purposes aforesaid matter is being listed, the other coordinate Division Bench dealing with other jurisdiction shall not be empowered to decide such case except by getting the nomination of the matter by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice.That the other aspect of the matter is pertaining to the determination of the reason for which a particular case is being listed in the cause list circulated to the bench and the members of Bar, the case may not be decided by any other coordinated Division Bench without it being posted for hearing.That the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have been promulgated in exercise of the power conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it on that behalf. Thus the strict observation and compliance of mandatory provisions is required to be observed by the Hon’ble Court in consonance with requirement of Principle of equity, fairness and in such circumstances if the practice and procedure prescribed in this regard is not followed then the deviations from the rules of court may violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.That in the light of the aforesaid legal propositions advanced by the deponent / writ petitioner, it is submitted that the present special appeal without being listed in the daily cause list either under the separate serial number in the cause list, nor it remain listed with the appropriate heading ‘For Hearing’, but the same has been decided without giving notice to the counsel appearing for respondent.That under the provisions of Chapter V Rule 1 of High Court Rules, 1952, the sole prerogative of the Hon’ble Chief Justice to decide the particular subject matter conferred on particular bench for particular period. If the decision of the subject matter by some other bench is taken up without being listed at the serial number under the heading of the hearing or without the case being Part-heard or tide-up, if the decision is given by the other bench without nominating by the Hon’ble Chief Justice the judgement will be without jurisdiction and nullity.That, it is in the interest of justice that the order dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal no. 1369 of 1999 may be set aside and the Hon’ble Chief Justice refer the matter to Hon’ble Three Judges, as justice may be done with the rights of the applicant/petitioner.Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad
7/06/2008 6:25 AM
Anonymous said...
Complaint in respect of functioning of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan in respect of his functioning as Allahabad High Court Judge, Now elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court To,My lord The Chief Justice Of India,Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,New DelhiReference:- The Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta has decided the special appeal No. 1369 of 1999 wholly without Jurisdiction , as the jurisdiction to hear and decide the same on 26.10.2006, the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2 Gupta under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. It is submitted that the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta. There is a complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicataSubject:- Direction may be issued for deciding the matter pertaining to recall of order and judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 passed wholly without Jurisdiction by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta as the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta, when the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34 as the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2The submission of the petitioner Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad in this regards are as under. That the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English in the institution on 9.8.1968. He was confirmed after completion of probation period on 9.8.1969. He was the member of Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh and as such he was detained under the maintenance of Internal Security Act from 14.8.1975 to 30.3.1977. He was again detained under National Security Act (N.S.A.) on 1.11.1980 upto 10.12.1980 and despite the aforesaid preventive detention; the respondents paid the petitioner salary. That third time when on 11.7.1987 the petitioner went to Govt. Inter College, Moradabad to take training under the new education policy, he was detained under the provisions of Internal Security Act. That the petitioner was taking the training alongwith the principal of institution and one Khajan Giri and as such he told the Principal to inform the Manager about his arrest, but still the Manager wrote a letter on 24.7.1987 stating therein that the petitioner did not attend the college and was not present in the institution on 21.7.1987.That on 27.7.1987 the petitioner wrote a letter that he was arrested by the Police at the gate of Govt. Inter College, and had been lodged in district Jail Moradabad from 11.7.1987. This letter was sent through district Jail Moradabad and the same was communicated to the Manager, who sent the aforesaid letter to the D.I.O.S. Moradabad on 31.7.1987.That the members of Bhartiya Janta Party shown its resentment against the illegal detention of the petitioner and the news to this effect was published in Amar Ujala on 16.7.1987. Thus the management knew the fact regarding the absence of petitioner on account of unavoidable circumstances of his illegal detention, but still the allegation of absent from leave was leveled against the petitioner.That Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Senior Lawyer of District Court Moradabad and the Vice-President of Committee of Management of Institution passed resolution on 15.7.1987 seeking bye cot of all the courts Moradabad on account of illegal arrest of petitioner. That still the resolution was passed on 4.9.1987 to give a notice to the petitioner as to why he remained absent from 11.7.1987 and sought for his explanation. The notice was sent to the petitioner in jail on 10.9.1987 stating therein that why his services should not be terminated. The explanation of petitioner regarding his absence being beyond his control as had been detained under the National Security Act and the earlier information sent to the manager on 27.7.1987 was not taken into consideration by the management. That the charges were in respect of previous detention for which the petitioner was paid his salary was also leveled as the first charge, while the second charge was falsely concocted, as the petitioner did not give any information regarding his detention, nor gave any leave application. The petitioner explained every thing in his letter dated 21.1.1988 and said that he is district Jail due to illegal detention and as such the absence of petitioner was beyond his control. The sole reason for the detention of the petitioner was that he was the District Secretary of Bhartiya Janta Party. That the petitioner was suspended, but the suspension order was revoked after 60 days. It is submitted that after being released from the preventive detention on 11.7.1988, the petitioner was directed to put his signature in the office of D.I.O.S. Moradabad, as the Management did not allow the petitioner to resume his duties. The petitioner was paid salary by the D.I.O.S. even after the preventive detention. That despite all such facts the matter was referred to the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad to whom petitioner sent a letter on 24.2.1989 seeking setting aside the proposal of the Committee of Management, but the one member committee who was not even authorized to conduct the enquiry recommended for termination of services of the petitioner and thereafter the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad on 28.7.1989 granted approval to the proposal for termination.That one member committee of O.N. Shah who remained Assistant Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 17.5.1987 and was the Principal of S.S.K. Inter College could not be appointed as one member committee and his recommendation to dispense with the services to the commission were void-ab- initio and as such the subsequent order of termination dated 1.9.1989 on the baseless, misconceived and frivolous charges was liable to be set aside, which was done by the reasoned judgement passed on 11.8.1999 in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989.The said judgement was challenged by the Committee of Management in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999.That after the dismissal of special appeal no. 840 of 1999 when the recall application was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the petitioner, then the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta after going through the contents of the counter affidavit filed in the said application seeking recall of the order dated 23.11.2003, summoned the file of the special appeal no. 860 of 1999 (filed by Sudhir Kumar dismissed on 2.4.2004), the Special Appeal no. 907 of 1999 (filed by U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission dismissed on 14.9.1999) and also the record of pending present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, simply to ascertain the matter in consonance with the requirement as to whether the recall application filed on behalf of the committee of management may be allowed or the same may be dismissed in absence of any rejoinder affidavit to the allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. That the special appeal no. 840 of 1999 was dismissed as not pressed on 23.11.2003 by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, JJ. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the Committee of Management of Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Moradabad challenging the judgement and order dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai J in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 (Prem Shankar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others). Thereafter an application for recall of the order dated 23.11.2003 purported to have been passed in the Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 without annexing the judgement dated 23.11.2004 dismissing the aforesaid Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the Petitioner. That the Petitioner filed the counter affidavit in reply to the affidavit filed in support of the recall application. It was stated that the judgment can not be recalled by moving an application at belated stage and the copy of the same is not given to the counsel appearing on behalf of answering respondent. That it was further stated that the said application is filed without having any explanation regarding non-filing of application seeking condonation of delay. Thus the same is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. That it was further stated that the Special Appeal no. 860 of 1999 filed by Sudhir Kumar against the same judgement dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai, J has been dismissed on 2.4.2004. This person Sudhir Kumar was inducted as the Lecturer in English after dispensing the services of the petitioner. However, when the writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 was allowed on 11.8.1999, then the services of Sudhir Kumar were terminated and as such he filed the Special appeal no. 860 of 1999, which was also dismissed and thereby reaffirming the judgement dated 11.8.1999. That the special appeal no. 907 of 1999 was filed against the same judgement passed on 11.8.1999 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, but that special appeal was also dismissed as misconceived and also being filed without any locus-standi by the judgment dated 14.9.1999. That on 26.10.2006 the jurisdiction to here the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2. It is submitted that the present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta and as such only to ascertain the facts stated in the counter affidavit and in the affidavit filed in support of the alleged recall application, the records of three aforesaid special appeal was summoned, wherein the name of the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/respondent namely Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate was the only name mentioned in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999. That the Standing counsel was not prepared to argue the matter pertaining to the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. in absence of the same not being listed in court no. 34 and in absence of Sri Ashok Khare, senior Counsel appearing in the said appeal on behalf of petitioner. This fact has been brought to the notice of the deponent by his counsel appearing in Special appeal no. 840 of 1999, which was dismissed on 23.11.2004.That the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan enquired about the matter from Sri V.K. Singh Advocate appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 and also enquired from the counsel for the respondent only about the controversy involved in all such special appeal out of which three special appeals were already dismissed while the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by State of U.P. was surviving. The counsel informed that the question as to whether a teacher while detained under Preventive detention could have been said to be voluntarily absenting from duty on the basis of which without affording any opportunity, the services of such teacher may be dispensed with in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and the case law relied upon in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 (state of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rama Shankar Raghuvanshui A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 374), (M.H. Devendrappa Vs. Karnataka State in Small Industries Development Corporation. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1064), Sarnam Singh Vs. Smt Pushpa Devi 1986 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. page 348 and Anukool Chandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2814, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Miss. Bina Pani Dei and others 1967 (2) S.C.R. 625 (Para-9), Mohinder Singh Gill VS. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (2) S.C.R. 272 (Para-9), State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 S.C.R. 284 followed in D.K. Yadav Vs. M/S J.M.A. Industry J.T. 1993 (3) S.C. 617 as well as the provisions of Regulation 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44 and 45 read with section 16 (G) (3-A) as provided under Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and rule 6 of rules framed under Act no. 5 of 1982 referred in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 were indicated as the controversy involved regarding unavoidable incident relating to the arrest under preventive detention, which is not pertaining to any criminal activity, but simply on account of participating into association under Article 19 (1) ( C) of the Constitution of India. The matter was not argued by the standing counsel, but in the judgment allegedly delivered on 26.10.2006, it has been falsely mentioned that the case was argued by the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Appellant. The counsel for the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 840/1999 Sri Yogesh Kumar saxena, Advocate informed the deponent that it was only Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate appearing in Special appeal No. 840/1999, who placed the controversy involved in his special appeal no. 840 of 1999.That on 1.11.2006, when the matter was shown to be listed in the cause list of court no. 34 regarding the delivery of the order in the recall application filed in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 then counsel for the petitioner was informed that since the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. was also liable to be dismissed and as such it has been shown to be decided on 26.10.2006 in the cause list of 1.11.2006. That upto this time i.e. 1.11.2006 there was no existence of the order alleged to have been passed on 26.10.2006 in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on the basis of which the recall application was decided as no order is required to be passed on this application, but subsequently thereafter when the message of dismissal of special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was communicated to the petitioner, then counsel for the petitioner came to know about the existence of the order. He applied for the order in anticipation that the special appeal bearing special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, which was earlier filed as (defective) appeal no. 630 of 1999 might have been dismissed as there may not be the inconsistent order in the said appeal after dismissal of three special appeals filed against the same judgement, in which the committee of Management and Secretary U.P. Secondary Commission remained at the array of respondents and were duly represented by their respective counsels. That, although the order passed on 23.11.2004 dismissing the Special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 has been affirmed by the order dated 26. 10. 2006 passed on Recall application, as it has been noted that in view of the judgement passed in special appeal No. 1369 of 1999, no order is required to pass on the recall application. Thus it appears that even by this order passed on 26.10.2006, the Hon’ble Division Bench dealing with the recall application in special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 did not find any merit in the said appeal. The Hon’ble division bench Presided by Hon’ble Dr. justice B. S. Chauhan adopted a unique manner in deciding the present Special Appeal wholly without jurisdiction purported to have decided on the same day, to which no person could have decided in the open court on 26.10.2006, otherwise their was no occasion for listing of the case on 1.11.2006 in the cause list for appropriate order on the recall application filed in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999. Thus the judgement passed in special Appeal is bad in the light of the legal fiction that what not be done directly in absence of jurisdiction, the can not be done indirectly by the Hon’ble Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta in passing the judgement on 26.10.2006 passed in special Appeal No. 1369 of 1999. That in this manner since the judgement passed in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 by the bench presided over the Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta is the judgment passed in absentia of the counsel of the petitioner/respondent appearing in the said appeal namely Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate for the petitioner in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, which was the only name printed as the sole name of the opposite party; and the same special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was neither listed for hearing under the caption of the jurisdiction, nor there had been any serial number mentioned against the said listing of the special appeal, regarding which, the communication could have been made to the senior counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner by the other counsel appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 at the time of its dismissal on 23.11.2004. There was no jurisdiction conferred with the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta to decide the special appeal of the year of 1999 as the jurisdiction of the same was conferred before court no. 2 under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicata as held in Sarguja Transport Service versus State Transport appellate Tribunal (1987)1 S. C. C. 5.( paragraph 7) That it is submitted that there is the complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter may not be decided by another coordinated Hon’ble Division Bench, except the Hon’ble Division Bench having the jurisdiction conferred to the different benches as per the circulation of cause list circulated to the Hon’ble benches and members of the Bar.That the constitution of the benches as per the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Registrar shall subject to such direction as Hon’ble Chief Justice may give from time to time caused to be prepare a cause list for each day on which the court sits containing the list of cases, which may be heard by different benches of court under Rule 6 of Chapter VI of High Court Rules, 1952.That an application for expediting of hearing of case or for listing a case out of term or for removal of case to be tried and determined by the court under Rule 4 or for withdrawal of a case under Article 228 of the Constitution of India shall be laid before Hon’ble Chief Justice (or any other judge of a bench nominated by Chief Justice in respect of any case or class of cases) for orders. Thus for having an out of term hearing of a case, the application is required to be moved before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.That in this manner, it is crystal clear that if the case is not listed in the cause list after determination of heading for what purposes aforesaid matter is being listed, the other coordinate Division Bench dealing with other jurisdiction shall not be empowered to decide such case except by getting the nomination of the matter by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice.That the other aspect of the matter is pertaining to the determination of the reason for which a particular case is being listed in the cause list circulated to the bench and the members of Bar, the case may not be decided by any other coordinated Division Bench without it being posted for hearing.That the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have been promulgated in exercise of the power conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it on that behalf. Thus the strict observation and compliance of mandatory provisions is required to be observed by the Hon’ble Court in consonance with requirement of Principle of equity, fairness and in such circumstances if the practice and procedure prescribed in this regard is not followed then the deviations from the rules of court may violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.That in the light of the aforesaid legal propositions advanced by the deponent / writ petitioner, it is submitted that the present special appeal without being listed in the daily cause list either under the separate serial number in the cause list, nor it remain listed with the appropriate heading ‘For Hearing’, but the same has been decided without giving notice to the counsel appearing for respondent.That under the provisions of Chapter V Rule 1 of High Court Rules, 1952, the sole prerogative of the Hon’ble Chief Justice to decide the particular subject matter conferred on particular bench for particular period. If the decision of the subject matter by some other bench is taken up without being listed at the serial number under the heading of the hearing or without the case being Part-heard or tide-up, if the decision is given by the other bench without nominating by the Hon’ble Chief Justice the judgement will be without jurisdiction and nullity.That, it is in the interest of justice that the order dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal no. 1369 of 1999 may be set aside and the Hon’ble Chief Justice refer the matter to Hon’ble Three Judges, as justice may be done with the rights of the applicant/petitioner.Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad
7/06/2008 6:26 AM
yogesh saxena said...
Complaint in respect of functioning of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan in respect of his functioning as Allahabad High Court Judge, Now elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court To,My lord The Chief Justice Of India,Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,New DelhiReference:- The Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta has decided the special appeal No. 1369 of 1999 wholly without Jurisdiction , as the jurisdiction to hear and decide the same on 26.10.2006, the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2 Gupta under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. It is submitted that the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta. There is a complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicataSubject:- Direction may be issued for deciding the matter pertaining to recall of order and judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 passed wholly without Jurisdiction by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta as the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta, when the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34 as the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2The submission of the petitioner Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad in this regards are as under. That the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English in the institution on 9.8.1968. He was confirmed after completion of probation period on 9.8.1969. He was the member of Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh and as such he was detained under the maintenance of Internal Security Act from 14.8.1975 to 30.3.1977. He was again detained under National Security Act (N.S.A.) on 1.11.1980 upto 10.12.1980 and despite the aforesaid preventive detention; the respondents paid the petitioner salary. That third time when on 11.7.1987 the petitioner went to Govt. Inter College, Moradabad to take training under the new education policy, he was detained under the provisions of Internal Security Act. That the petitioner was taking the training alongwith the principal of institution and one Khajan Giri and as such he told the Principal to inform the Manager about his arrest, but still the Manager wrote a letter on 24.7.1987 stating therein that the petitioner did not attend the college and was not present in the institution on 21.7.1987.That on 27.7.1987 the petitioner wrote a letter that he was arrested by the Police at the gate of Govt. Inter College, and had been lodged in district Jail Moradabad from 11.7.1987. This letter was sent through district Jail Moradabad and the same was communicated to the Manager, who sent the aforesaid letter to the D.I.O.S. Moradabad on 31.7.1987.That the members of Bhartiya Janta Party shown its resentment against the illegal detention of the petitioner and the news to this effect was published in Amar Ujala on 16.7.1987. Thus the management knew the fact regarding the absence of petitioner on account of unavoidable circumstances of his illegal detention, but still the allegation of absent from leave was leveled against the petitioner.That Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Senior Lawyer of District Court Moradabad and the Vice-President of Committee of Management of Institution passed resolution on 15.7.1987 seeking bye cot of all the courts Moradabad on account of illegal arrest of petitioner. That still the resolution was passed on 4.9.1987 to give a notice to the petitioner as to why he remained absent from 11.7.1987 and sought for his explanation. The notice was sent to the petitioner in jail on 10.9.1987 stating therein that why his services should not be terminated. The explanation of petitioner regarding his absence being beyond his control as had been detained under the National Security Act and the earlier information sent to the manager on 27.7.1987 was not taken into consideration by the management. That the charges were in respect of previous detention for which the petitioner was paid his salary was also leveled as the first charge, while the second charge was falsely concocted, as the petitioner did not give any information regarding his detention, nor gave any leave application. The petitioner explained every thing in his letter dated 21.1.1988 and said that he is district Jail due to illegal detention and as such the absence of petitioner was beyond his control. The sole reason for the detention of the petitioner was that he was the District Secretary of Bhartiya Janta Party. That the petitioner was suspended, but the suspension order was revoked after 60 days. It is submitted that after being released from the preventive detention on 11.7.1988, the petitioner was directed to put his signature in the office of D.I.O.S. Moradabad, as the Management did not allow the petitioner to resume his duties. The petitioner was paid salary by the D.I.O.S. even after the preventive detention. That despite all such facts the matter was referred to the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad to whom petitioner sent a letter on 24.2.1989 seeking setting aside the proposal of the Committee of Management, but the one member committee who was not even authorized to conduct the enquiry recommended for termination of services of the petitioner and thereafter the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad on 28.7.1989 granted approval to the proposal for termination.That one member committee of O.N. Shah who remained Assistant Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 17.5.1987 and was the Principal of S.S.K. Inter College could not be appointed as one member committee and his recommendation to dispense with the services to the commission were void-ab- initio and as such the subsequent order of termination dated 1.9.1989 on the baseless, misconceived and frivolous charges was liable to be set aside, which was done by the reasoned judgement passed on 11.8.1999 in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989.The said judgement was challenged by the Committee of Management in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999.That after the dismissal of special appeal no. 840 of 1999 when the recall application was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the petitioner, then the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta after going through the contents of the counter affidavit filed in the said application seeking recall of the order dated 23.11.2003, summoned the file of the special appeal no. 860 of 1999 (filed by Sudhir Kumar dismissed on 2.4.2004), the Special Appeal no. 907 of 1999 (filed by U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission dismissed on 14.9.1999) and also the record of pending present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, simply to ascertain the matter in consonance with the requirement as to whether the recall application filed on behalf of the committee of management may be allowed or the same may be dismissed in absence of any rejoinder affidavit to the allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. That the special appeal no. 840 of 1999 was dismissed as not pressed on 23.11.2003 by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, JJ. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the Committee of Management of Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Moradabad challenging the judgement and order dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai J in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 (Prem Shankar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others). Thereafter an application for recall of the order dated 23.11.2003 purported to have been passed in the Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 without annexing the judgement dated 23.11.2004 dismissing the aforesaid Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the Petitioner. That the Petitioner filed the counter affidavit in reply to the affidavit filed in support of the recall application. It was stated that the judgment can not be recalled by moving an application at belated stage and the copy of the same is not given to the counsel appearing on behalf of answering respondent. That it was further stated that the said application is filed without having any explanation regarding non-filing of application seeking condonation of delay. Thus the same is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. That it was further stated that the Special Appeal no. 860 of 1999 filed by Sudhir Kumar against the same judgement dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai, J has been dismissed on 2.4.2004. This person Sudhir Kumar was inducted as the Lecturer in English after dispensing the services of the petitioner. However, when the writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 was allowed on 11.8.1999, then the services of Sudhir Kumar were terminated and as such he filed the Special appeal no. 860 of 1999, which was also dismissed and thereby reaffirming the judgement dated 11.8.1999. That the special appeal no. 907 of 1999 was filed against the same judgement passed on 11.8.1999 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, but that special appeal was also dismissed as misconceived and also being filed without any locus-standi by the judgment dated 14.9.1999. That on 26.10.2006 the jurisdiction to here the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2. It is submitted that the present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta and as such only to ascertain the facts stated in the counter affidavit and in the affidavit filed in support of the alleged recall application, the records of three aforesaid special appeal was summoned, wherein the name of the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/respondent namely Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate was the only name mentioned in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999. That the Standing counsel was not prepared to argue the matter pertaining to the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. in absence of the same not being listed in court no. 34 and in absence of Sri Ashok Khare, senior Counsel appearing in the said appeal on behalf of petitioner. This fact has been brought to the notice of the deponent by his counsel appearing in Special appeal no. 840 of 1999, which was dismissed on 23.11.2004.That the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan enquired about the matter from Sri V.K. Singh Advocate appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 and also enquired from the counsel for the respondent only about the controversy involved in all such special appeal out of which three special appeals were already dismissed while the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by State of U.P. was surviving. The counsel informed that the question as to whether a teacher while detained under Preventive detention could have been said to be voluntarily absenting from duty on the basis of which without affording any opportunity, the services of such teacher may be dispensed with in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and the case law relied upon in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 (state of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rama Shankar Raghuvanshui A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 374), (M.H. Devendrappa Vs. Karnataka State in Small Industries Development Corporation. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1064), Sarnam Singh Vs. Smt Pushpa Devi 1986 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. page 348 and Anukool Chandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2814, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Miss. Bina Pani Dei and others 1967 (2) S.C.R. 625 (Para-9), Mohinder Singh Gill VS. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (2) S.C.R. 272 (Para-9), State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 S.C.R. 284 followed in D.K. Yadav Vs. M/S J.M.A. Industry J.T. 1993 (3) S.C. 617 as well as the provisions of Regulation 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44 and 45 read with section 16 (G) (3-A) as provided under Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and rule 6 of rules framed under Act no. 5 of 1982 referred in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 were indicated as the controversy involved regarding unavoidable incident relating to the arrest under preventive detention, which is not pertaining to any criminal activity, but simply on account of participating into association under Article 19 (1) ( C) of the Constitution of India. The matter was not argued by the standing counsel, but in the judgment allegedly delivered on 26.10.2006, it has been falsely mentioned that the case was argued by the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Appellant. The counsel for the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 840/1999 Sri Yogesh Kumar saxena, Advocate informed the deponent that it was only Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate appearing in Special appeal No. 840/1999, who placed the controversy involved in his special appeal no. 840 of 1999.That on 1.11.2006, when the matter was shown to be listed in the cause list of court no. 34 regarding the delivery of the order in the recall application filed in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 then counsel for the petitioner was informed that since the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. was also liable to be dismissed and as such it has been shown to be decided on 26.10.2006 in the cause list of 1.11.2006. That upto this time i.e. 1.11.2006 there was no existence of the order alleged to have been passed on 26.10.2006 in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on the basis of which the recall application was decided as no order is required to be passed on this application, but subsequently thereafter when the message of dismissal of special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was communicated to the petitioner, then counsel for the petitioner came to know about the existence of the order. He applied for the order in anticipation that the special appeal bearing special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, which was earlier filed as (defective) appeal no. 630 of 1999 might have been dismissed as there may not be the inconsistent order in the said appeal after dismissal of three special appeals filed against the same judgement, in which the committee of Management and Secretary U.P. Secondary Commission remained at the array of respondents and were duly represented by their respective counsels. That, although the order passed on 23.11.2004 dismissing the Special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 has been affirmed by the order dated 26. 10. 2006 passed on Recall application, as it has been noted that in view of the judgement passed in special appeal No. 1369 of 1999, no order is required to pass on the recall application. Thus it appears that even by this order passed on 26.10.2006, the Hon’ble Division Bench dealing with the recall application in special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 did not find any merit in the said appeal. The Hon’ble division bench Presided by Hon’ble Dr. justice B. S. Chauhan adopted a unique manner in deciding the present Special Appeal wholly without jurisdiction purported to have decided on the same day, to which no person could have decided in the open court on 26.10.2006, otherwise their was no occasion for listing of the case on 1.11.2006 in the cause list for appropriate order on the recall application filed in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999. Thus the judgement passed in special Appeal is bad in the light of the legal fiction that what not be done directly in absence of jurisdiction, the can not be done indirectly by the Hon’ble Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta in passing the judgement on 26.10.2006 passed in special Appeal No. 1369 of 1999. That in this manner since the judgement passed in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 by the bench presided over the Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta is the judgment passed in absentia of the counsel of the petitioner/respondent appearing in the said appeal namely Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate for the petitioner in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, which was the only name printed as the sole name of the opposite party; and the same special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was neither listed for hearing under the caption of the jurisdiction, nor there had been any serial number mentioned against the said listing of the special appeal, regarding which, the communication could have been made to the senior counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner by the other counsel appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 at the time of its dismissal on 23.11.2004. There was no jurisdiction conferred with the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta to decide the special appeal of the year of 1999 as the jurisdiction of the same was conferred before court no. 2 under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicata as held in Sarguja Transport Service versus State Transport appellate Tribunal (1987)1 S. C. C. 5.( paragraph 7) That it is submitted that there is the complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter may not be decided by another coordinated Hon’ble Division Bench, except the Hon’ble Division Bench having the jurisdiction conferred to the different benches as per the circulation of cause list circulated to the Hon’ble benches and members of the Bar.That the constitution of the benches as per the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Registrar shall subject to such direction as Hon’ble Chief Justice may give from time to time caused to be prepare a cause list for each day on which the court sits containing the list of cases, which may be heard by different benches of court under Rule 6 of Chapter VI of High Court Rules, 1952.That an application for expediting of hearing of case or for listing a case out of term or for removal of case to be tried and determined by the court under Rule 4 or for withdrawal of a case under Article 228 of the Constitution of India shall be laid before Hon’ble Chief Justice (or any other judge of a bench nominated by Chief Justice in respect of any case or class of cases) for orders. Thus for having an out of term hearing of a case, the application is required to be moved before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.That in this manner, it is crystal clear that if the case is not listed in the cause list after determination of heading for what purposes aforesaid matter is being listed, the other coordinate Division Bench dealing with other jurisdiction shall not be empowered to decide such case except by getting the nomination of the matter by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice.That the other aspect of the matter is pertaining to the determination of the reason for which a particular case is being listed in the cause list circulated to the bench and the members of Bar, the case may not be decided by any other coordinated Division Bench without it being posted for hearing.That the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have been promulgated in exercise of the power conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it on that behalf. Thus the strict observation and compliance of mandatory provisions is required to be observed by the Hon’ble Court in consonance with requirement of Principle of equity, fairness and in such circumstances if the practice and procedure prescribed in this regard is not followed then the deviations from the rules of court may violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.That in the light of the aforesaid legal propositions advanced by the deponent / writ petitioner, it is submitted that the present special appeal without being listed in the daily cause list either under the separate serial number in the cause list, nor it remain listed with the appropriate heading ‘For Hearing’, but the same has been decided without giving notice to the counsel appearing for respondent.That under the provisions of Chapter V Rule 1 of High Court Rules, 1952, the sole prerogative of the Hon’ble Chief Justice to decide the particular subject matter conferred on particular bench for particular period. If the decision of the subject matter by some other bench is taken up without being listed at the serial number under the heading of the hearing or without the case being Part-heard or tide-up, if the decision is given by the other bench without nominating by the Hon’ble Chief Justice the judgement will be without jurisdiction and nullity.That, it is in the interest of justice that the order dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal no. 1369 of 1999 may be set aside and the Hon’ble Chief Justice refer the matter to Hon’ble Three Judges, as justice may be done with the rights of the applicant/petitioner.Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad
7/06/2008 6:26 AM
e - Voice Of Human Rights Watch - e-news weeklySpreading the light of humanity & freedomEditor: Nagaraj.M.R....vol.4 . issue.27......05/07/2008
e-Judiciary: computerizing the judicial system
http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20080707/technologysabha04.shtml
CLM Reddy Head, Courts Informatics Division, National Informatics Centre, gave a comprehensive overview of the state of affairs vis-à-vis the ongoing computerization of the Indian judicial system. By Pujya Trivedi
Former President APJ Abdul Kalam Azad kicked off the process of establishing a judicial e-governance grid that would cover the entire judicial system in India from the district courts to the Apex ones back in July 2007.
Two decades back, NIC had initiated the computerization of Indian Judicial activities in 1990 starting with the Supreme Court of India. During 1992-1995 NIC took up the computerization of all High Courts on the lines of the Supreme Court computerization program. During 1997-1999 NIC implemented IT systems at 430 District Courts with the aim of creating awareness. During 2002-2005, it implemented systems at Metro and Capital city courts.
From 2007 onwards, NIC has been implementing Phase - I of the District and Subordinate courts project at a cost of Rs 442 crore. This project is to be completed within two years. The e-court effort by the Supreme Court will be completed in three phase as MMP under NeGP plan to link 15,000 courts in the country, informed CLM Reddy Head, Courts Informatics Division, National Informatics Centre, during his speech at Technology Sabha, Kovalam.
Public Interface applications (PIAs)
Reddy gave a complete overview of the current state of affairs of e-Judiciary in India.
Under the e-Courts program, a list of eight services is to be provided including the online availability of judgments cause list, e-Filing of cases, notices through emails, etc. CLM Reddy said, “A need was felt to enable the Indian Judiciary through ICT. For this purpose, Public Interface Applications (PIA) were developed to help in the judicial administration of courts to streamline their day-to-day processes.” These PIAs are being used by judges to access legal and judicial databases as well as by litigants for whom information transparency is vital.
Some of the PIAs accessible on the Internet are:
Cause lists
Cause lists are the schedules of cases that will be heard by the courts on the following day. The Cause lists (CL) of the Supreme Court and all 21 High Courts are available on NIC’s Web Servers. Reddy said, “This is a near time critical application in all the Courts because until the list is ready and published, tomorrow’s court can not function.” This application helps advocates and litigants view the cause lists as soon as they are out in the registry. It eliminates the need to wait for a hardcopy to be delivered late in the evening. Advocates can now easily locate and generate their own CLs.
Daily orders
Orders delivered by the court are made available to litigants on the Internet on the same day. This application receives about 15,000 hits every day.
Case status
Through this application the latest status of a case that is either pending or has been disposed off by the Supreme Court or a High Court is accessible.
Judgments Information System
This consists of the judgments of the Supreme Court and several High Courts. It contains close to 60,000 reported judgments of the Apex Court that can be accessed by litigants and lawyers. Reddy added, “For those who do not have access to the Internet, we have introduced an Interactive Voice Response System to access Supreme Court cases. This system can be accessed by dialing 24357276.”
Digitally signed certified copies
The Court also provides digitally signed copies, which do not need to be crosschecked with the original file and can be immediately served to a litigant. As there will be no delay in issuing a certified copy, the dealing clerk has to provide the copy on the spot. The litigant can even download an electronically certified copy from the Net without having to contact the court.
India code
It contains all the Acts of Parliament from 1834 onwards. Each Act contains a Short Title, Enactment, Sections and Schedule, Amendments, etc. which can be retrieved online. Judges and librarians can maintain a reliable and updated copy of the India code.
e-Filing
This system envisages the electronic filing of cases by advocates from their offices. The advocate gets a receipt that has been digitally signed by the court authority. The person filing cases electronically is entitled to receive court proceedings electronically.
Earlier computerization schemes
The Indian judicial system encompasses nearly 15,000 courts situated in approximately 2,500 court complexes. In 1997, 430 district courts were computerized with an investment of Rs 15 crore. Under this scheme, one PC was provided to every district judge. During 2001-02, 700 metro civil courts were computerized and two or three PCs installed in each court with an outlay of Rs 17.8 crores. In 2003-04, 781 courts in 29 capitals were enabled and two or three PCs deployed in each court with an investment of Rs 24.8 crore. The e-Court monitoring Committee was constituted to oversee the implementation process in December 2004. NIC implements projects under the overall guidance of this e-Committee.
The e-Court project
The e-Court project was approved by CCEA (Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs) in 2007. The total cost of this project has been estimated to be Rs 442 Crore and is expected to be completed by end-2008. This project will cover the remaining lower courts as well as take care of upgrading the ICT infrastructure. The implementing agencies for this project are NIC with the consultation and guidance of the e-committee.
The e-Courts project will ensure that the status of pending cases from every court will be available online—in terms of both the cause list and the case details. It will also help courts issue digitally certified copies instantaneously. Facilitation counters will be set up in every court building for filing of cases and the issuance of certified copies and case information. This will help citizens report cases and obtain information without hassle.
In phase -II of this project, victims and witnesses will be produced through video conferencing. Notices will be served and summons of higher court will be sent electronically. Digitally signed court orders and judgments will be available on the Net.
This project will also help in creating a database of pending cases and the electronic calculation of fees to eradicate corruption. It will electronically assign cases to judges. Similar cases will be grouped together, which will help in closing similar cases at a go. The system will also store digital transcripts of evidence, to make them tamperproof. Moreover, this system will help in the monitoring of process service levels.
12,840 laptops had been supplied to judges, over 9,000 of who were provided with Internet connectivity by BSNL and the rest were in the progress of being brought online. 13,000 laser printers were also being given to the judges. In the court complexes, two to six servers per court and one laptop along with a scanner and printer were provided with a LAN. Personalized training and handholding for two years is being given to judges and their staff. Several awareness programs and workshops are being carried out by retired judges to deal with change management. Reddy said, “The e-judiciary initiative in the overall system will help in regular monitoring of cases, bring transparency to the system, enabling the quicker disposal of cases and help in transforming court services into a more focused system that will meet the needs of the citizen.”
pujya.trivedi@expressindia.com
www.expresscomputeronline.com
HC bans mining in Brij Chaurasi Kose
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Jaipur/HC_bans_mining_in_Brij_Chaurasi_Kose/articleshow/3195098.cms
JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday put a blanket ban on mining activities in the sacred Brij Chaurasi Kose area of Deeg and Kama tehsils of Bharatpur. The place is of great significance as the same is believed to be the place of "Krishnaleela" and witnesses several pilgrimages around the year. The court passed this order in as many as 113 petitions filed by the mine owners whose mining licenses were prematurely terminated by the mining department early this year. The petitions were seriously opposed by the priests of Man Mandir Seva Sansthan on the ground that the area is losing its ancient charm and the world's most famous "Krishnaleelasthali" has been disfigured by the mining activities that are being carried on illegally in some cases.
4 Jul 2008, 0620 hrs IST,TNN
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
HC seeks number of cheque bounce cases in state
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/004200807041221.htm
Mumbai (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Thursday asked the Law and Judiciary department of the Mantralaya to submit details of the number of cheque bounce cases pending under the Negotiable Instruments act in the state within two weeks.
Division bench of Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice V M Kanade was hearing a public interest litigation seeking to appoint special courts to deal with cheque bounce cases.
The court wanted to know whether there was a requirement for more magistrates to deal with such cases and how many such cases were filed.
Additional government pleader Anand Patil informed the court that after an order of the high court in 2005, the state had created 100 new posts for civil magistrates across the state.
The court has asked the law and judiciary department to evaluate the situation and inform it if they had adequate infrastructure and if there was requirement for still more posts for magistrates to be created. To get a better insight into the matter, the Chief Justice asked Patil to give area-wise details of the ratio of the number of cases pending to the number of judges in the state.
The court also wants to know the number of cases filed nder the Negotiable Instruments Act section 138 (cheque bounce cases) and the pendency of such cases in courts.
The PIL will come up for further hearing on July 17.
Friday, July 4, 2008
www.hindu.com
Pubjab and Harayana HC stays CAT order quashing Malik suspension
http://www.indlawnews.com/Newsdisplay.aspx?f872fa10-fce5-4509-99d5-dc2598729ab6
The decision of the local bench of the central administrative tribunal (CAT) in quashing the suspension of former Haryana Police Chief Mohinder Singh Malik was today stayed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court here. The division bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Mohinder Pal ordered the stay after preliminary hearing of the Haryana government's plea challenging the CAT order vide which it had allowed the application of Malik against the state orders in suspending him and also subsequent orders extending the period of suspension till October 31, the date on which the former DGP was otherwise due to retire from service. Malik is 1969 batch IPS officer of Haryana cadre.While staying the operation of the orders of CAT, the bench also issued notices for September 18, 2008 to CAT, Malik and the union government for filing their response in the matter. The CAT order besides quashing suspension and reinstatement, also envisaged all consequential service benefits. Malik had been placed under suspension on June 14, 2005 and a charge sheet served on him on August 3, 2005 enumerating alleged illegalities pertaining to the establishment of and recruitment to now defunct Haryana state industrial security force (HSISF). UNI
7/3/2008
www.indlawnews.com
N H Wadia trust to submit ad draft within one week: HC
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blnus/28041620.htm
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday asked the N H Wadia Trust to submit a draft of the advertisement to be published regarding an auction of a prime piece of land owned by it to the Prothonotary within one week.
Division bench of Justices S B Mhase and Ashutosh Kumbhakoni said that the fresh auction of the land was only to find out the market price of the land.
The Prothonotary would record the bids and forward the details to the Charity Commissioner. The Court was hearing an application filed by the son of one Sakharam Patil who was the original lessee of the land, claiming his rights as the Trust was planning to sell it. The 5722 sq mtr land, located in Kalina, North Mumbai, was leased to Patil and his family for agriculture in 1938. The land was cultivated till 1984. In 2004, the Trust decided to sell the land and approached the Charity Commissioner after e valuating the land value at Rs 1.5 crore, without disclosing about the lease given.
The Charity Commissioner had subsequently valued the land at Rs 2 crore, which is much below the market price, petitioners said, who are seeking their claim of the auction price.
The Charity Commissioner had, pursuant to the matter being brought to Court, conducted an auction last month. The highest bidder - Kalptaru builders, was ready to pay Rs 51.46 crore for the land. Kalptaru's bid is not cancelled, considering that fresh b ids are being invited, Court said. - PTI
Friday, July 4, 2008
www.thehindubusinessline.com
Opening by CJI tomorrow
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEK20080704014239&Page=K&Title=Southern+News+-+Karnataka&Topic=0
GULBARGA: CHIEF Justice of India Justice K.G. Balakrishnan will inaugurate the much-awaited High Court Circuit Bench here on Saturday.Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa and Supreme Court Justice R.V. Raveendran will be the chief guests. Chief Justice of the State High Court Cyriac Joseph will preside over the programme.Minister for Law and Parliamentary S. Sureshkumar, Minister for Public Works C.M. Udasi, Opposition leader Mallikarjuna Kharge, former chief ministers N. Dharam Singh and H.D. Kumaraswamy and Advocate General Udaya Holla will be the guests of honour. Former High Court judges and MLCs of Bidar, Bijapur, Gulbarga and Raichur districts will be present.
Friday July 4 2008 12:04 IST
ENS
Arushi murder: SC dismisses plea against narco test
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Arushi-murder--SC-dismisses-plea-against-narco-test/330876/
New Delhi, July 3: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition seeking to restrain CBI from conducting narco-analysis test on the suspects in Noida's Arushi-Hemraj murder case.
The petition was filed by All India Lawyers Joint Action Committee, an unregistered body of lawyers.
Refusing to entertain the plea, a bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir said the lawyer's body had no locus standi in the case as it was not a registered entity in law and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable.
Agencies
Posted online: Thursday , July 03, 2008 at 12:50:24
http://www.expressindia.com
SC directs Centre to ensure smooth traffic movement on NH 31A
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blnus/28031415.htm
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre, the Governments of Sikkim and West Bengal to ensure smooth flow of traffic on the National Highway 31A, the lone road linking Sikkim to rest of the country which is frequently blocked by pro a nd anti-Gorkhaland supporters.
A Bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir also ordered the organisations, agitating in favour and against the creation of Gorkhaland, not to block traffic or people movement on the highway which is the lifeline of Sikkim.
The court passed the order on a petition filed by a Sikkim resident, Mr O P Bhandari seeking directions to Governments to ensure safe transportation of essential commodities to the state through the highway which often becomes the venue of protests on th e Gorkhaland issue.
The petitioner pleaded that frequent bandhs and strikes in the recent past had badly affected normal life of people in the state and its economy was adversely affected by the ongoing agitation. - PTI
Thursday, July 3, 2008
www.thehindubusinessline.com
SC anguished over frequent strikes, pulls up govt for inaction
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200807032022.htm
New Delhi (PTI): On a day of bandh on the Amarnath yatra issue, the Supreme Court on Thursday upbraided the Executive for showing "helplessness" in acting against those holding the country to "ransom."
The apex court's observations were not related to the BJP-sponsored countrywide bandh but came during a hearing on a petition relating to the recent blockade of a National Highway in West Bengal by agitators demanding a separate Gorkhaland.
"You(State) all rest and do nothing. Those who are required to act according to the Constitution are party to it. Those who have the muscle power can hold the country to ransom," it observed while voicing its dismay over frequent strikes and road blockades in the country.
"The entire life comes to standstill. Movement of medicine, fuel and everything gets affected and the state expresses its helplessness. This cannot be allowed," a Bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir said.
The Bench, which was hearing the petitions relating to the recent blockade of National Highway 31A, was surprised that in such type of crisis the authorities were shirking from their responsibility and leaving it to the judiciary to handle the situation. The Highway, which is the lone road linking Sikkim to the rest of the world, was blocked by agitators demanding a separate Gorkhaland.
"They (states) leave their responsibilities to courts. The court has to pass order which the state should do by itself. Then it is said there is interference and judicial overreach," the Bench said while directing the Centre, governments of West Bengal and Sikkim to ensure smooth flow of traffic on the NH 31A.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
www.hindu.com
Panthers Party moves SC against revocation of land transfer
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14708306
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is likely to hear tomorrow a petition challenging the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir Government to revoke the transfer of land to Amarnath Shrine Board.
The petition, which was mentioned before a Bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir for urgent hearing, sought quashing of state government's order revoking the transfer of 39.88 hectare of forest land to the Board contending that the decision was taken by the minority government which has been directed by the Governor to prove its majority on the floor of the House on July 7.
The petition filed by Prof Bhim Singh, chairman of J&K National Panthers Party, also alleged that the state government has imposed the curfew in Jammu without any logic which resulted in creating anarchy and leaving the people helpless.
The imposition of curfew has taken away the fundamental rights of school going children, patients and working class, the petition said.
The petition sought a direction for the Jammu and Kashmir Government to pay a compensation to the families of those killed and injured during police firing in different parts of the state during the recent protests
Thursday, 03 July , 2008, 20:37
http://sify.com
SC restrains Gujarat govt. from arresting Ashis Nandy
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200807011655.htm
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday restrained the Gujarat government from arresting political analyst Ashis Nandy on a FIR registered against him for writing an article allegedly having communal overtones.
A vacation bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir allowed the petition filed by Nandy seeking stay on his arrest and criminal proceedings initiated against him on the basis of an FIR registered by Ahmedabad police after his article appeared in a national daily.
Nandy had moved the apex court after the Delhi High Court earlier refused to provide him an interim protection against arrest.
The scholar has also sought quashing of the FIR lodged on a complaint filed by V K Saxena, President of an NGO, National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL).
In the FIR, it was alleged that Nandy's article related to assembly election results promoted communal disharmony between Hindus and Muslims.
However, Nandy contended that the FIR was registered out of malafide intention and oblique motive. He said that the FIR was aimed at penalising and depriving him of expressing his bonafide views.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
www.hindu.com
About Me
- Kamal Kumar Pandey (Adv. Supreme Court of India)
- Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment